Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WHITSTABLE HARBOUR BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

PETITION

Nuclear Tests

Mr. Frank Allaun: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition, signed by 3,700 members of branches of the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen. The Petition is headed by the signature of Mr. G. H. Doughty, the General Secretary, and other leading officials of the Association.
The Petition sheweth
That there are increasing dangers of damaging this and future generations as a result of hydrogen bomb explosions.
It prays for the suspension of all plans for testing hydrogen bombs. The Petitioners believe
that the menace of the hydrogen bomb tests lies not in what the scientists know, but in what they do not know, and that the testing of physical effects of the bombs with an imperfect knowledge of the biological effects sets the future of the human race at hazard.
The Petition also
appeals for attempts to be made to persuade other nations to act in a similar way.
The Petition concludes in the customary way, with the words
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
In order to save the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, I do not request that the Petition be read again by the Clerk.

To lie upon the Table.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for Return of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict, c. 77, during 1956.—[Mr. Simon.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Government Departments (Electronic Computers)

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many electronic computers are now in use in Government Departments; whether more of these machines are to be installed in the current financial year; and if he will give an estimate of man hours saved or staff reduced consequent upon their use.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Ten electronic computers are in use in Government Departments on mathematical or scientific work. Five machines are due to be installed during the current financial year, of which three will be for work of a clerical or statistical nature. No estimate of staff savings consequent upon their use can be given until further operating experience is available.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Can my hon. Friend tell me what measures are taken to ensure that the use of this expensive equipment is co-ordinated between Departments so as not to have unnecessary duplication?

Mr. Powell: Great care is taken before these machines are installed on preparatory work to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived from them.

Mr. J. T. Price: Whilst everyone welcomes the scientific developments which will ease the drudgery of clerical work, will the Minister and his colleagues take every precaution against the use of these machines for compiling vast amounts of useless statistics about things not of general utility?

Civil Service Pensioners (Re-employment Pay)

Mr. Russell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the nature of his objections to amending Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, so as to allow Civil Service pensioners re-employed in a lower grade to benefit from increase in pay awarded to staff employed in the lower grade.

Mr. Powell: No re-employed Civil Service pensioner receives less than the current rate for the job he is doing, and the Royal Commission recommended no amendment of Section 20.

Mr. Russell: Does he not fail to receive any increase given to others in that grade, and is not that the cause of the grievance? Is it not a discouragement to civil servants to go back to work at a lower grade?

Mr. Powell: He never receives less than tae pay of the grade in which he is employed. Frequently and usually he receives more than that.

Take-over Bids

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the inflationary influences inherent in takeover bids, he will refrain from increasing Government holdings of ordinary shares during his term of office.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Birch): Her Majesty's Government are not contemplating making any take-over bids.

Dr. Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that a policy of this nature is, so to speak, prescribing a hair of the dog that bit you as a cure for inflation?

Mr. Birch: I fully agree with my hon. Friend.

Cooker Safety Device (Tax)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the 15 per cent. Purchase Tax has now been withdrawn from the Crayleigh cooker safety device.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir.

Mrs. Mann: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why?

Mr. Powell: Because my right hon. Friend has not completed his study of the matter.

Small Fixed Income Groups

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that, in planning the financial needs of those living on small fixed incomes, he will have regard for the policy of greater responsibility for local authorities which may vitally affect the

income position of State pensioners, old-age pensioners and others dependent on fixed incomes and difficult to relieve of tax burdens.

Mr. Powell: I am afraid I cannot make head or tail of my hon. Friend's Question.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that this point about those living on small fixed incomes, who may have additional burdens to bear when the proposals for local government reforms are implemented, was made to me by a local deputation of the National Union of Teachers? If I ask the chairman of that deputation to write to my hon. Friend and explain the matter, will my hon. Friend be kind enough to see whether the Treasury is clever enough to know what the National Union of Teachers means?

Mr. Powell: If, as it now possibly appears, this is a matter connected with rates, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Gentleman cannot make head or tail of the Question, how is it that the Clerk at the Table accepted it?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps he was able to make both head and tail of it.

Dame Irene Ward: I am obliged to the Chair for helping me out of a dilemma.

National Industries (Capital Investment)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that, in assessing the capital investment programme for the nationalised industries, he has available the most up-to-date figures from the various Departments to whom these industries are under an obligation to supply them.

Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir, though we are always concerned to imrove our estimating.

Dame Irene Ward: It was very difficult to get the Question I wanted on the Order Paper, and I had to adopt this means. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling among many Government Departments that figures collected from private industry are given


more readily, more accurately and more quickly, and that the nationalised industries are dragging their feet? Will he inquire of Government Departments about that and see whether they are as satisfied as he seems to be?

Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Peyton: As the Question refers to up-to-date figures, does the Treasury condone the idea of this quite extraordinary report which has been produced by the Board of Trade on women's measurements?

Dame Irene Ward: Do let us have an answer.

Tax Office, Rugby

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the public anxiety in Rugby regarding the closure of the tax collection office; and whether he will reconsider his decision, bearing in mind the inconvenience caused to Rugbeians having to journey to Coventry or Leamington.

Mr. Powell: I understand that the town clerk has written to the Board of Inland Revenue, which has explained that the new arrangements will cause little inconvenience to residents of Rugby, but will make a substantial contribution to economy and efficiency.

Mr. Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the view of the town clerk, nor of the town council, nor of the chamber of commerce, nor of the big industrial firms working in the town? Is it not a fact that no employees will be sacked but will merely move offices? Is not this a matter of penny wise pound foolish?

Mr. Powell: I can assure the hon. Member that this closing, with others, will result in a net saving in staff and in expenditure. There is widespread confusion in Rugby and elsewhere about the functions of collectors' offices and inspector's offices. It is with an inspectors' office that the public nearly always has to deal.

Mr. Johnson: Can the hon. Member say what other towns of comparable size and economic and industrial importance have suffered this fate?

Mr. Powell: Perhaps the hon. Member will study the list in my reply of 3rd June to my hon. Friend the Member for Lang-stone (Mr. Stevens).

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Fluorosis

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1)if he will now make a full report, in accordance with the several promises made to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, including the promise made in April, 1953, on the problems which arise from industrial fluorosis with its effect on vegetation and animal life;
(2)if he will make a full statement or publish a White Paper on the results of the research based upon the observations on cattle which began in September, 1953, at the Fenton Manor Farm. including the effects of fluorosis on teeth, bones, milk and on the development of the calf; and what further action it is intended to take.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): My Department's concern with this problem lies in trying to find a remedy for fluorosis in farm livestock, and in giving farmers the best advice we can meanwhile. A full report on the work at Fenton Manor Farm cannot be made until the experiments have been completed, which will probably not be before the end of 1959. Meantime, the hon. Member has already been provided with two interim reports, and I will continue to keep him informed of the progress of the work.

Machinery Co-operatives

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to help machinery cooperatives to assist the smaller farmer to reduce the costs of mechanisation.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend will always be interested in any practical suggestions for developments of this kind on a commercial basis. Such services are already provided in various ways, for example, through contractors, co-operative societies and agricultural syndicates.

Mr. Willey: While appreciating that something has been done in this matter, does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realise that not sufficient is being done and that some initiative is demanded of the Government to see whether costs of mechanisation can be kept clown in this way?

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend keeps in touch with the central organisations responsible for development of agriculture generally, and if they have any suggestions we shall be happy to examine them.

River Ribble (Pollution)

Mr. T. Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now in a position to disclose the results of the investigations made by the Lancashire River Board into the excessive pollution of the River Ribble on 3rd and 4th July, 1957, when many thousands of fish were poisoned; and what action he proposes to take against those responsible.

Mr. Godber: As to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke)on 30th July.
Any proceedings would be for the Lancashire River Board to take, but my right hon. Friend understands that it has decided against taking such action.

Mr. Brown: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not aware of the growing disquiet in the north-west of Lancashire about the heavy pollution of rivers and water courses? Is he further aware that, in the last three months, it has grown progressively worse? Will he not ask the river boards to have keener and stricter supervision and, when possible, to take action against the culprits?

Mr. Godber: I accept that this matter is causing concern. My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government are very concerned about this, but there are strict limits to what we can do in this matter, although we will keep in touch with the river boards about it.

Mr. Jack Jones: Is the hon. Member aware that the continued pollution of this and other rivers is creating grave concern among ordinary, decent, humble anglers, decent working chaps, whose minds are becoming poisoned—they are already poisoned enough against the Government?

Mr. Godber: I should be sorry to think that while angling they were thinking about the Government.

Mr. Champion: Will not the hon. Gentleman consider using the default powers in the River Boards Act, 1948, because this is a serious matter?

Mr. Godber: I will consider that. This particular pollution arose in special circumstances and was aggravated by a severe storm. I do not think that at the moment we have sufficient grounds for using the default powers.

Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Interest Rates)

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take the further increase in interest rates on money borrowed from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation into consideration in the Annual Review and determination of guarantees; and if he will devise some means of lessening the effects of increased interest charges on those applying for grants for long-term improvements of agricultural land.

Mr. Godber: Increases in interest rates on borrowings for long-term purposes affect the owner of land directly, and they would be only taken into account at Annual Reviews in so far as their indirect effect might be to increase the level of farm rents. My right hon. Friend has no power under the Farm Improvement Scheme to have regard to interest charges payable by owners borrowing money in order to make long-term improvements.

Mr. Champion: Is it not the case that what happens in effect is that the taxpayer gives the farmers money largely so that they can hand it over to the moneylenders?

Mr. Godber: I do not accept that entirely. The money goes mainly to landlords for capital improvement. Interest rates affect Government policy as a whole, but it would not be right for me to discuss them here.

Slaughterhouses (Design)

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in his draft regulations prescribing standards for slaughterhouse design, he will ensure


that adequate provision is made for suitable accommodation and space for meat inspection, following the best European standards.

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. Adequate provision for meat inspection will be required.

Mr. Champion: Who is the hon. Gentleman consulting in this connection? Will he consult the British Veterinary Association, which has an exceptional knowledge in these matters, as well as others?

Mr. Godber: We have consulted a very large number of bodies. Without notice I could not be certain, but I should have thought that the B.V.A. would have been consulted.

Mr. Kimball: Can my hon. Friend say when these draft regulations will be published, because the intolerable delay over publishing is causing the greatest inconvenience to local authorities and the meat trade generally?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the need, and I hope that recommended standards in the form of these draft regulations will be published as a White Paper next week. If we get that, I am sure that it will be helpful to all those whom my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Willey: Does the Minister realise that there will be an awful row if his right hon. Friend does not introduce legislation about slaughterhouses next Session?

Mr. Godber: I realise the concern of the hon. Member and of the House in this matter. I share that concern.

River Severn Banks (Erosion)

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now state what progress has been made in the negotiations between the Severn River Board and the British Transport Commission for a scheme to deal with erosion by the River Severn.

Mr. Godber: I regret that I cannot yet add anything to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 27th June.

Sir P. Agnew: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been uncertainty about this matter for a very long time? Can he

hold out some hope that if I put the Question down again shortly after the House resumes at the end of October he will be able to furnish a more definite reply?

Mr. Godber: I realise that this has been a long time, but it is a very complicated matter. Answering the latter part of the supplementary question, I hope that all sorts of things will appear in a different perspective after we have had a holiday.

Milk (Transport Allowances)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will cause a review to be made by the Milk Marketing Board of allowances paid for the bulk transport of milk from creameries to processing dairies.

Mr. Godber: These allowances are approved by my right hon. Friend and he knows of no immediate need for a special review.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that the concern about the uncertainty of the allowance to be paid in future is handicapping the long-term development of the haulage of milk by hauliers and distributors of milk? Is he further aware that special attention needs to be given to the station allowance paid in respect of milk transported by rail?

Mr. Godber: These are matters primarily between the Board and those concerned with transport. If there are any particular difficulties in transport by rail, I am sure that if the railway authorities will get in touch with the Milk Marketing Board these are questions which they should be able to resolve. We will keep in touch with the whole matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Political Situation

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the present political situation in Nyasaland reflected in the expulsion of two African members of the Federal Parliament from the African National Congress.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): No African member of the Nyasaland Legislative Council has been expelled from the Nyasaland African Congress. I assume the hon. Member is referring to the expulsion from Congress of the two Nyasaland African members of the Federal Assembly. This dissension within Congress ranks reflects no change in the political situation in Nyasaland.

Mr. Brockway: May I first express my appreciation of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is here? I do not mean that sarcastically; I appreciate his presence. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at my Question on the Order Paper? The Question on the Order Paper refers to two African Members of the Federal Parliament. He seems to be replying to a Question on the Order Paper before this. In view of that correction, I hope that I may be allowed to ask a supplementary.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is nothing in that correction to answer. The hon. Member asks me how the present political situation in Nyasaland is reflected in the expulsion of these African Members. I pointed out that the two Members had been expelled from Congress, the two Members being sitting Members in the Federal Parliament, and that it reflected no change in the territorial political situation in Nyasaland. The purpose of my answer was not to cast doubts on the hon. Member's accuracy but to pin-point what he had in mind.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is it not a fact that the political situation is changing, largely due to the action of the right hon. Gentleman, in which he is conniving at the actions of Federal leaders? Is it not a fact that since the visit of Sir Roy Welensky to London and the apparent acceptance by the Colonial Secretary of his views, Africans in the Federation are becoming desperate about the situation? Is not the situation changing, as a result of which these two men have been expelled from their party because they went to Salisbury and accepted Federation until 1960?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member cannot get away with that. The only thing which this Question reflects is dissension within the ranks of the Nyasaland

Congress, and I think the hon. Member will agree that I have enough to answer for without dealing with the internal affairs of the Nyasaland Congress or taking any responsibility for them.

Mr. Callaghan: Would it be fair to put it to the Colonial Secretary that the dissension in the African National Congress in Nyasaland is purely one of the tactics to be used in opposing Federation and does not reflect any agreement on the part of anybody in the African National Congress that Federation should continue?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that there are members of Congress who will follow the advice of Lord Attlee when he said, in this House, that if Federation became law the Labour Party of Great Britain would do their best to make it work.

Mr. Callaghan: Can we ask the Colonial Secretary for once in a while to answer the question put to him, instead of putting a gloss on the answer which he himself is giving? May I ask him again, is the dissension in the African National Congress, as far as he knows, one of tactics in opposing Federation? If that is so, does it not justify some of the comments which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson)made?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must repeat that I cannot possibly put an interpretation on the action of people who belong to a body for which I have no constitutional responsibility.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the intense feeling in Nyasaland of the Africans against Federation, can the right hon. Gentleman now give urgent attention to a much more liberal constitution in Nyasaland itself?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, when I was in Nyasaland fairly recently I discussed with the Governor and with other leading people in the Colony what might be done in that field. I await the recommendations, which will come in due course. I share the right hon. Gentleman's desire that the constituent parts of the Federation shall move in a constitutional and sensible manner towards greater responsibility within the framework of the Federation as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that when I rose earlier I was only correcting the right hon. Gentleman, who had answered a Question which is not now on the Order Paper, and that I refrained from putting a supplementary question? In these circumstances, may I put a supplementary question now?

Mr. Speaker: I listened to the hon. Member and I thought he was asking a supplementary question.

Mr. Brockway: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I would not credit to him the offence of asking about another Question on the Order Paper. I took it for granted that what he asked was relevant to the Question which he had put down. I am sorry if I was mistaken about that.

Mr. Brockway: It was not I who was asking a Question which was irrelevant; it was the Minister, as I am sure he will acknowledge, who was answering a Question which was irrelevant and which was not on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot go into that.

Iron Ore

Mr. Wilfred Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decisions have been reached by the Government of Nyasaland in regard to the mining of iron ore three miles from the main railway line near Lirangwe; to what extent the Government of Nyasaland will participate in the production of the ore; for what purposes it will be used; and if trade union rights and minimum wage rates will be included in any agreements undertaken with private industrial organisations.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No decisions have yet been reached. The matter is still in the exploratory stage and the question of Government participation has not arisen. Small amounts of ore may initially be mined for cement production. The protective provisions of the Trade Unions and Trade Disputes Ordinance, the Wages and Conditions of Employment Ordinance and the African Employment Ordinance would automatically apply to the employees of any mining company.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Njau Kariuki

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement on the case of Njau Kariuki.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have already placed a copy of the judgment in this case in the Library. In addition to the five convictions in the Jasiel Njau case there were 37 other convictions of detainees, all for common assault, arising out of incidents which occurred at Gathigiriri Camp on 25th January. Of these, 12 of the accused were sentenced to ten weeks' imprisonment with hard labour, 24 to six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour and one was discharged under Section 36 of the Penal Code.

Mrs. Castle: Does not this reveal that there has been the most unsatisfactory state of affairs in this camp for a very long time? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the statement which he has placed in the Library includes the report of the disciplinary inquiry into the conduct of the commandant of the camp in not stopping assaults earlier? If it does not, will he say when that report will be available and will he be good enough to send me personally a copy of it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Lady ought to see this in perspective. As the sentences suggest, these were only very minor cases of assault. The hon. Lady knows enough about the conditions and the type of men who are detained not to regard this as very, very serious. She asked about the disciplinary inquiry. The inquiry under the Solicitor-General has now been completed and the report is being prepared for submission to the Governor-in-Council-of-Ministers. The Governor will let me know his intentions after he has considered the report. The report is made to the Governor-in-Council, and I do not propose to publish it.

Mr. Paget: When the right hon. Gentleman says that these were minor offences, is he aware that the offence was that hard-core detainees in this camp who did not confess were tied by their hands some three feet from the ground and flogged with strips of rubber cut from


tyres until they did confess? Is this a minor assault?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was dealing with minor injuries. Only minor injuries were inflicted. The hon. Lady should not thaw from that the belief that there was widespread violence and cruelty at this camp.

Circumcision

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what enactment female circumcision has been declared illegal in Kenya; how many prosecutions for illegal circumcision have occurred in the Meru tribal area since the practice was prohibited; what has been the range of fines imposed; and how many parents have been imprisoned.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The practice is contrary to Sections 230 and 237 of the Penal Code but the Kenya Government's policy of eradicating it is most effectively pursued through the tribal authorities. Since the Meru tribal authorities in May of this year declared it to be contrary to modern tribal law and custom 254 prosecutions have been brought in African courts and 239 have led to convictions. The range of fines imposed varied from 50/shs. to 400/shs. and 65 persons have served terms of imprisonment in default of payment. I have no information on how many parents have been imprisoned.

Mrs. Castle: While we would all deplore the horrible practice of female circumcision, may I ask the Colonial Secretary if he agrees that the right way to deal with it is not by legal prosecutions, in which the parents of the girls who have inflicted this practice on themselves without the parents knowing may be brought to court and be heavily fined? Is he aware that the fine may be as much as 400 shillings in the case of a man whose monthly wages are only 50 shillings, which amounts to a crippling burden, and, in default, imprisonment? Is not this a barbaric way of dealing with a barbaric custom, which must be dealt with by educational methods?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am all for education, but I think that parental responsibility is a good thing in Kenya, as in Great Britain.

Legislative Council (African Members)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now make a statement on increased African representation in the Kenya Legislative Council.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The African members have asked for increased African representation in the Kenya Legislative Council. This is one of the aspects of constitutional development on which I have been able in the last few days to have useful talks with the Governor, the three elected European Ministers and the Asian Minister for Works and with Mr. Mboya and Mr. Ngala. These helpful and friendly talks have helped me to clarify a number of the issues involved.
I am hoping to visit East Africa later in the year and to be available to take part at an appropriate stage in the further discussions in Kenya which will clearly be necessary.

Mr. Brockway: Whilst welcoming the announcement that the Minister intends to go to East Africa to carry on these discussions, may I ask him that when he is there he will do his utmost, in view of the fact that the Asians and the Arab groups have endorsed these African claims, to secure also endorsement by the European group?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If by "African claims" the hon. Member means claims to increased African representation, I could not, of course, deal with that question in isolation from other aspects of the constitutional problem, but I welcome the recognition by the European-elected members that in certain circumstances an increase in African representation should be a feature of any settlement.

Royal Technical College, Nairobi

Mr. Albu: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the future of the Royal Technical College, Nairobi.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): The Royal Technical College was set up in 1954 by an Act of the East African High Commission to provide in the East African territories facilities for higher technological, professional and vocational training. The question of introducing degree courses at


the Royal Technical College is at present under consideration, but no decision has yet been reached.

Mr. Albu: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that, in the immediate future, this college would be better employed in undertaking work equivalent to the level in this country reached in National Certificate and Higher National Certificate, and if it is to do work at a higher level, would it not do better to give its own associateship rather than attempt to give a degree at the present time which might not be accepted in this country or elsewhere?

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir; I think that the arrangements are perfectly adequate.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Harbour Development

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in implementing the Milbourne Report on the commercial development of Gibraltar harbour.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Plans for improved oil bunkering and watering of ships have been worked out. The oil company concerned is willing to come into the scheme. Arrangements for certain Admiralty wharves to be used as part of the commercial port have been discussed and it is hoped will soon be completed.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether any actual progress has been made in preparing these deep-water berths, and whether both fuelling and watering connections are available at the North Arm?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretray of State was in Gibraltar recently and addressed himself, among other things, to this problem. The preliminary administrative work is being carried out, and I think that the coming in to the scheme of that particular oil company is something by which we are all gratified. The Admiralty have now made arrangements to produce detailed plans for the loan of their wharves to the Gibraltar Government, and these are going ahead. All the difficulties, one by one and quickly, are being moved out of the way.

Mr. John Hall: Can my right hon. Friend say if the tendency for American shipping lines to use Algeciras rather than Gibraltar is continuing?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir; it is at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS

Economic Development

Mr. Marquand: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet been asked to receive a delegation from the Legislature of British Honduras for the purpose of considering their plans for economic development.

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir, but it has always been the intention that the visit of the delegation last year should be followed by further discussions with a delegation this year on financial and economic problems. No date has yet been fixed for these further talks, but it is expected that they will take place in the autumn.

Mr. Marquand: Has the Under-Secretary of State any information to give to the House as to whether the present Administration in British Honduras is willing, and is preparing plans of this kind?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir I certainly think so.

Member for Natural Resources (U.S.A. and Guatemala Visit)

Mr. Marquand: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered a report of the results of the official visit of the Member for Natural Resources of British Honduras to the United States of America and Guatemala: and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Profumo: I understand that the Member for Natural Resources recently visited the United States to investigate certain possibilities of the utilisation of the resources of British Honduras forests, and visited Guatemala to inquire about the system of oil prospecting licences there. The Member made a public statement on these visits at a meeting of the Legislative Assembly on the 7th June. I have not seen the text of this statement, but this is primarily a matter for the


local Government, and I should not, in the normal course, expect to receive a report.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Franchise

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what official advice he has given to the Legislative Councils of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland regarding the published proposals of the Federal Government of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland on changes in the franchise.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None, Sir, regarding the franchise proposals of the Federal Government in regard to the Constitution Amendment Bill, but as I stated in the House on 9th July, I told the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and of Nyasaland that no objection was seen to the passage of a resolution by each of the Legislative Councils that they did not object to the introduction of the Federal Constitution Amendment Bill. The answer also explained my reasons for this view.

Mr. Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report in today's Press that the Constitution (Amendment)Bill was only carried by a majority of one in the Federal Assembly yesterday? Is he aware that the African Affairs Board has denounced these franchise proposals and that many Europeans in the Federal Parliament have also opposed them? Will he therefore reconsider giving his endorsement to proposals which may be very dangerous in inflaming opinion in these territories?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is once again wrong in his detail, and a very important detail. The Bill was carried by the two-thirds majority which is necessary in order to secure an amendment of the Constitution. As I know that the hon. Gentleman and many people outside this House are interested in this matter, I should like to answer his questions at greater length. The African Affairs Board has reported to the Assembly that the Constitution (Amendment)Bill is, in its view, a differentiating Measure. Since then, yesterday, in fact, the Assembly has passed the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has not received any information that the Board has

requested the Speaker of the Federal Parliament to ask the Acting Governor-General of the Federation to reserve the Bill for Her Majesty's pleasure on the grounds that it is a differentiating Measure. If such a request is made, the Acting Governor-General of the Federation will transmit it to my noble Friend.

Mr. J. Johnson: Do I understand that the Minister is now answering Question No. 66, which is in my name, because he did not say so in the first place?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was not answering that Question, but, in case the hon. Gentleman's Question was not reached, I thought it might help him and the House if I referred to it in my answer.

Mr. J. Griffiths: This will be the first time since the Federal Constitution came into operation on which the African Affairs Board has certified a Measure as being differentiating. If it reports it in the constitutional way, it will come to the Secretary of State. May I ask him whether, in view of the fact that this is an important issue and that this is the first time it has arisen, he will give an assurance that he himself and the Government will not make up their minds on a final decision about this matter until Parliament resumes in the Autumn?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a perfectly proper question which the right hon. Gentleman has asked. It is speculative, in the sense that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has not received any official information that the Board has asked the Speaker of the Federal Parliament to ask the Acting Governor-General to reserve the Bill. If he is so asked, it will come, not to me, but to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and if my noble Friend recommended to Her Majesty that Her Majesty should give assent to the Bill, an Order in Council would be necessary. This Order in Council would have to lie on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament for 40 sitting days.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is it not a fact that, under these proposals, the Europeans will not only elect their own European Members but will also elect the African Members? Is the Minister aware that it has been widely stated in the Federation that, when Sir Roy Welensky came here,


the Minister gave his assent and consent to these proposals? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore care to deny or to confirm that, because of the very great misunderstanding in the Federation about the structure suggested in the proposals?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would recommend the hon. Gentleman and all others interested to read the very fair leading article in the Manchester Guardian, which sets out in great detail the advantages and some of the disadvantages of this procedure. I would urge him also to recognise that through this procedure persons are placed for the first time on the electoral roll, and that this represents a very considerable advance and one which I hope hon. Members on neither side of the House will tend to forget.

Mr. J. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question? Is it not obvious that this is a two-tier system, and also that the Europeans elect their own Members and also elect the African Members on the lower tier?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Everybody who qualifies is entitled to vote under the proposals as put forward by Mr. Greenfield on either the A or B roll. Mr. Greenfield has also said in the Federal Parliament in the last two or three days that they would be prepared to consider sympathetically an Amendment to reduce the qualification from £180 to £150 a year, which would have a considerable effect on the number of Africans enfranchised.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Wages

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent in the fixing of minimum wage rates in the Colonies, representatives of the workers affected by such wage rates are consulted.

Mr. Profumo: Legislation in the majority of territories provides for worker representation on wage-fixing bodies. Elsewhere workers are in practice usually represented on wages advisory boards.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the appallingly low wage rates in many of our Colonies, will the Under-Secretary investigate this matter in order to

strengthen the representation of the workers and in order to foster trade union organisation while it is clear that living standards should be raised?

Mr. Profumo: All Colonial Governments are aware of the basis of wage fixing legislation in this country and have been encouraged to follow the same pattern.

Family Allowances

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will recommend to the Governments of the Colonial and Trust Territories the introduction of schemes of family allowances, particularly where low wage rates are received by the majority of the indigenous populations.

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. Families in need of assistance are the concern of the respective Governments, but the form and extent of such assistance must be decided in the light of local circumstances.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the fact that in this country we have adopted a system of family allowances, and in view of the enthusiasm of the Secretary of State for upholding parental responsibility, does not the Under-Secretary think something should be done to give assistance to families in the Colonies and to foster a system of family allowances such as we have here?

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member should remember that family allowances were introduced here at a late stage in the development of our economy and of our system of social security. It seems to me that the first aim should be to raise basic wage levels so that they are sufficient to support a man and his family as soon as he is fully employed as a wage earner.

Mr. Tilney: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that when the French introduced family allowances in Dahomey, somewhat retrospectively, one of the civil servants obtained more than £1,000 in one payment because of the immense numbers of his children?

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which Colonial and Trust Territories schemes of family allowances have been introduced.

Mr. Profumo: In none.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Defence Departments (Redundancies)

Mr. Wilfred Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been sent by Her Majesty's Government to the resolution passed by all the unions of Malta Government employees and sent to him at the beginning of July regarding discharges from defence departments, the provision of alternative employment and a general revision of salaries and wages.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A reply is still under consideration. I hope it can be sent before the end of the week.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Special Branch

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the purpose of the Special Branch in Uganda, the number of its personnel, and the annual expenditure by the Uganda Government on it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Special Branch is the branch of the Police Force charged with investigation of matters which may affect law and order and the security of the Protectorate. It is not the practice to disclose the size or expenditure of such branches.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that the activities of this Branch have become very near to a complete farce? In view of the improvement in the political situation in Uganda and the need to increase expenditure on some of the other departments in Uganda, has not the time arrived for a review to be made of this expenditure?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could not accept the charges of the hon. Member. I am sure that the Governor and the Protectorate Government, whose responsibility this is, will notice his suggestion for alternative use of this money, but I cannot accept it myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Education

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many secondary schools in Cyprus now remain

closed by order of the Cyprus Government; and how many children are being deprived of schooling as a result.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: One secondary school, the Larnaca Lyceum, was closed from November, 1956, until the summer vacation began last month. I have no figures to enable me to give a precise answer to the second part of the Question, but the number is probably not large.

Mrs. Jeger: Could the Minister say whether there is any prospect of this school reopening after the summer holidays? How can it help the maintenance of law and order in Cyprus for any number of these school children to be idle all day? Can he say whether anyone is training teachers, or what happens to their livelihood when schools are closed?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There has been a most spectacular improvement in the education situation in Cyprus compared with last year. If this school is prepared to accept the requirements of discipline and good order, it could be reopened this year. I would remind the hon. Lady and the House that this was a school where the two people who tried most to keep discipline, the secretary of the committee and the senior English master, were brutally murdered. I am not prepared to go beyond the statement of the Governor that certain conditions must be accepted before the school is reopened.

Constitution

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now able to make a statement on the Government's proposals for discussions with representative Cypriots on the constitutional future of their country.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's reply on the 25th July to the hon. Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. K. Robinson).

Mrs. Jeger: Is it not outrageous that the House should be adjourned tomorrow for three months without hon. Members being given any information about the plans of the Government for the future of Cyprus? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter is coming again before the United Nations before the House reassembles and this Government will stand condemned before the world, as it did by the Resolution passed at the last meeting of the General Assembly?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In order to prevent reasonable people suggesting that it was outrageous, we had a full day's debate a fortnight ago.

Mr. Callaghan: Were we not told in that debate that the Government were waiting for certain things to happen and we did not know what they were? Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us whether the Governor has returned with any instructions to start discussions on the future of the island?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Being anxious, as we all are, for a settlement, those who are most anxious will, I think, keep silent.

Mr. K. Robinson: Would the right hon. Gentleman make the intentions of the Government quite clear? Are they prepared to allow the present deadlock to continue indefinitely, or do they intend to make a statement about their proposals as soon as this House has safely dispersed for the Recess?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member knows that that rather ungenerous dig at the end of his question was hardly justified.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Co-operative Societies

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cooperative societies have been started in the past twelve months in the Eastern Region of Nigeria; and if he is satisfied that the staff of the Registrar of Co-operatives is numerically adequate to deal with the increase, and that the advertised qualifications and salaries for auditors are adequate, in view of the higher standards required and salaries given for British auditors.

Mr. Profumo: One hundred new societies were started in the last twelve months. I am informed that the Eastern Regional Government does not consider the staff of its Co-operative Department to be adequate and that steps are being taken to improve the situation. I am also informed that the work at present performed by the auditors is regarded as commensurate with their qualifications.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand from that Answer—which I heard indistinctly

owing to the noise which was being made—that in fact the auditors are to be brought up to a standard commensurate with those of auditors in this country?

Mr. Profumo: As I said, the work at present performed by auditors was regarded as commensurate with their qualifications.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE

Education

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the small number of graduates produced by the present educational system in Sierra Leone and inadequate educational standards generally, what further consideration is being given to educational development, particularly in view of the increasing need of well-qualified Africans in Sierra Leone.

Mr. Profumo: The Sierra Leone Government are to give educational development the highest priority. As the hon. Member will know from my reply to his Question on 16th July, a statement of policy is to be put before the House of Representatives and I would suggest that he awaits this.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, unfortunately, there have been somewhat poor results so far? In those circumstances, can we be assured that steps are being taken, or proposals are to be applied, which will improve that situation?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think I have anything to add to the Answer I have given.

Elections (Petitions)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the Minister of Health in Sierra Leone was unseated after the general election; how many petitions have been presented against elected candidates, and for what reasons; and what is the present political position in that Colonial Territory.

Mr. Profumo: After considering a petition against the Minister's election, the Supreme Court found that corrupt practices had occurred and that undue influence had been exercised in the constituency; and it declared the election


void. Nine election petitions have been filed in all, involving such matters as corrupt practices, irregular procedure by returning officers, and nomination by unqualified persons.
The new Government, formed after the recent elections, is now functioning and the new House of Representatives has concluded its first meeting, in which it tackled its business in a constructive manner.

Mr. Sorensen: How many of these elected candidates are not taking their seats and, therefore, not acting in that Parliamentary sense?

Mr. Profumo: So far, the outcome of only three hearings is known. All have been successful.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Land Tenure

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is his policy regarding land tenure in the African townships of Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Northern Rhodesian Government are considering one aspect of land tenure in African townships, the facilitation of African leasehold tenure in African township and municipal areas, as I explained in my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 8th May. Apart from that, the Northern Rhodesian Government recently established a committee to investigate land tenure in urban and peri-urban areas, with particular reference to the need to encourage capital investment and other development.

Mr. Johnson: Is it not a fact that the Northern Rhodesian Government have had a Bill on the stocks for the last six months to allow Africans to have title deeds to land, arrange mortgages, and be given some security in their holdings in African townships? I was told out there that they were being held up by the dilatoriness of the Colonial Secretary——

Mr. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you noticed the long period which has been taken on these Questions to the Colonial Secretary. Is it in order for hon. Members to give information rather than ask for information in their supplementaries?

Mr. Speaker: Really, a supplementary question should be a question, as the words imply, but I have frequently heard a supplementary question put in such a way that one is in doubt as to who is answering the Question and who is asking it.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask it now, Sir? Is it not a fact that the Rhodesian Government are waiting for the Colonial Secretary to alter or repeal the 1924 Ordinance so that they can get on with their own Bill in their Legislative Council? Why is the Colonial Secretary so slow in taking action here?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am trying to alter a situation which was tolerated throughout the whole tenure of office of the late Socialist Government. I am doing my best. I have had nothing but praise from the Northern Rhodesian Government for the spirit with which we are tackling this quite difficult problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — CARIBBEAN FEDERATION

s.s. "West Indian"

Mr. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals have been made by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Governments of the Caribbean area to replace the s.s. "West Indian", which is likely to be withdrawn at the end of the year owing to lack of financial backing.

Mr. Profumo: The agreement for operation of the ship expires next January. The West Indian Governments, whose responsibility this is, have rejected proposals for renewal because the subsidy proposed would involve too great a proportion of the expected Federal revenue. Other proposals are now being considered by those Governments and it is not necessary for Her Majesty's Government to intervene at this stage.

Mr. Royle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that The Times shipping correspondent referred to this boat as a symbol of growing kinship, and would he not agree that Federation of the West Indies can be a complete mockery if there is not sufficient transport and communication? Will not the United Kingdom do something to assist in this


regard, so that there may be really adequate communications and transport?

Mr. Profumo: It is the hope that inquiries which are now proceeding will lead to a replacement scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA

Secondary Industries

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the laws passed in Jamaica recently designed to encourage the establishment of secondary industries there; and what are the prospects of these laws being extended to include other British. West Indian territories when Federation is implemented.

Mr. Profumo: The Industrial Incentives Law. 1956, and the Export Industry Encouragement Law, 1956, have been recently enacted in Jamaica to encourage the establishment of secondary industries. Under these two laws, together with the Pioneer Industries (Encouragement)Law, 1949, persons wishing to establish or expand industrial undertakings may obtain tonnage tax, Customs Duties and income tax concessions. This legislation is somewhat complicated, and I am arranging for copies of it to be placed in the Library.
A variety of legislation having similar objectives exists in most of the other British West Indian territories. I cannot prophesy how the establishment of Federation will affect this.

Mr. Russell: Will not my hon. Friend agree that this is very sound policy which ought to be copied throughout the Colonial Empire wherever possible?

Bauxite

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the estimated reserves of bauxite in Jamaica; and what are the prospects of the rate of output of bauxite being still further increased.

Mr. Profumo: The reserves of bauxite in Jamaica are at present estimated at between 500 and 600 million tons. Output is expected to increase from the current annual rate of 3⅓ million tons to between 7 and 9 million tons by 1960.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether his recent statement that the defence services will be co-ordinated includes supervision by the Minister of Defence over the activities of the Ministry of Supply.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The present position is as I stated it on 24th January, that is to say that, subject as necessary to consultation with the Cabinet and the Defence Committee and with the Treasury on matters of finance, the Minister of Defence has authority to give decisions on all matters of policy affecting the size, shape, organisation and disposition of the Armed Forces, and their equipment and supply (including defence research and development).

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the present organisation as satisfactory, in view of the fact that the Minister of Defence has no power to intervene in matters of production and research which are within the exclusive prerogative of the Minister of Supply? Is he aware that, because I regard this position as just a half-way house at the very best, I intend to direct his attention to the matter again after the Recess?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I know the right hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter and his great experience in it. I think that he will agree that we have made a good deal of progress in many rather difficult questions, both as to manpower and general organisation. We are proceeding now with inquiries as to how we can obtain a more effective coordination of the command structure and in the central administrative organisation; but we have to proceed by stages. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's interest, and I will do my best to answer any questions later on about the progress we are able to make.

Mr. Robens: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the statement made in the House last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and will he say whether the responsibility there lies with the Minister of Defence or the Minister of Supply? What action does he propose to take about those allegations?

The Prime Minister: I have read the debate, and I have asked for some inquiries to be made. I do not think that this really arises out of the particular Question, which relates to co-ordination under the Ministry of Defence which the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)thinks ought to be taken on a further stage of authority.

Mr. Gaitskell: What my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens)was asking, however, was whether this particular matter, to which my hon. Friend for Leeds, East referred yesterday, was exclusively the responsibility of the Minister of Supply. Will the Prime Minister, when his inquiries are complete, arrange for a statement to be made to the House?

The Prime Minister: If a Question is put down, I will do my best to answer it. I was only pointing out that it did not arise out of this one; otherwise, I should have prepared myself to reply.

Mr. Robens: Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that it is a matter of responsibility which we are trying to establish, and that this does arise out of the Question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington? I asked whether the Minister of Supply was entirely responsible for this, or whether the Minister of Defence had overriding supervision.

The Prime Minister: But on this particular question, as it was raised, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that I should be wise to consider the reply before I make it, and, therefore, I shall be glad to see it on the Order Paper.

Major Legge-Bourke: Reverting to my right hon. Friend's answer to the right hon. Member for Easington, may I ask him whether, in the consideration he is now giving to the possibility of better co-ordination, he will not rule out the possibility of merging both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Supply?

The Prime Minister: All these are very important questions, and I think that, earlier in the Session, we have discussed them in some detail. I have made a number of statements about them. I ask the House to recognise that these are very large issues. What we thought right to do was to take the most immediate

decisions first and proceed, as I think we can, by stages to reach what I hope will be the right solution.

Mr. Strachey: Will the Prime Minister look into the internal organisation of the Ministry of Defence itself, with a view particularly to strengthening its secretariat so that the Minister of Defence will have independent advice, independent of the other Ministries, and have a secretariat which can prevent the sort of terrible scandal—I use the word advisedly—which has been found in the Ministry of Supply to which my right hon. Friends have just referred?

The Prime Minister: I could not, of course, accept the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to make in his supplementary question. Concerning the organisation of the Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that I am bound by the statutory position introduced some years ago. We attempted to go as far as possible by directive to get the maximum coordination that we could, but I have always been frank with the House that if we wanted to go further it would become necessary at some time to present legislation to the House.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (STATUES)

Mr. Walter Elliot: (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on certain additional recommendations of the Committee appointed to advise on the memorial to the late Earl Lloyd-George.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir. In addition to its proposals regarding the Lloyd-George statue, the Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that there is as yet no memorial in the Palace of Westminister to the late Earl of Balfour. They pointed out that a suitable site exists in the Inner Lobby and hoped that the appropriate steps would be taken.
The Government feel that they should give effect to the unanimous recommendation of this Committee. I propose, therefore, as soon as is convenient, to move a Motion of the usual kind in the House to this end.

Mr. Elliot: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he has taken account also of our other recommendation, that so far as possible the Inner Lobby should be left for memorials to Prime Ministers?

The Prime Minister: That is very much a matter for the House itself and not for me to decide, but I think it should be considered.

Mr. Grimond: While welcoming the projected return of Mr. Balfour, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, if he is looking into the siting of statues in general, he will reconsider the position of Keir Hardie outside the Tea Room, where he does not look his best?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter in which, very properly, the House jealously preserves its own rights. What happened was that a Committee was appointed, and I would not have thought it right to accede to this if it had not been a unanimous recommendation of the Committee. I felt, therefore, that when I put forward the Motion it would be likely to commend itself to the House as a whole.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Prime Minister consider the removal of the Keir Hardie bust from its present location to a more suitable location?

Mr. Ellis Smith: On the Table.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the very wise suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith)? Apart from that, would he not agree that there are more suitable sites for this bust?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I understand that it stands where it is by recommendation of the appropriate Committee. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion would command the same unanimity. I would, however, always act on the advice of the Committee and I think that that is really the best method in these matters. I will certainly see that attention is called to this question when we come to the appropriate Committee to review these problems.

Mr. Nicholson: As chairman of what my right hon. Friend calls the "appropriate Committee", may I ask whether

he is aware that it is difficult to find suitable sites, particularly when a bust is in bronze and most of the busts in the House are of stone? The Committee will be only too glad to hear the views of other hon. Members, because the only desire of the Committee is to suit the wish of Members as a whole.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would it, perhaps, be convenient if the appropriate Committee could produce a report setting out the problems that arise in connection with these statues, so that we can consider the whole problem and not just the question of the Earl of Balfour?

The Prime Minister: I will look into that. I understand that the Committee is one that advises Mr. Speaker, but perhaps we could have a discussion on the vexed question of statues and see whether we can reach general agreement.

FEDERATION OF MALAYA (GIFTS TO PARLIAMENT AND GOV- ERNMENT)

Mr. Gaitskell: (by Private Notice)asked the Leader of the House whether he will make a statement about gifts to the Parliament and Government of the Federation of Malaya to mark Malaya's attainment of independence.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have authorised me to propose to you, Sir, that you should, on behalf of this House, offer to the Parliament of Malaya the gift of a Chair for their Speaker, with congratulations on Malaya's attainment of independence within the Commonwealth and with best wishes for the happiness and prosperity of her people.
Her Majesty's Government have also decided to offer biennially a Post-Graduate Scholarship to the Federation of Malaya to mark Malaya's attainment of independence. Details of this gift will be decided in discussion with the Malayan Government.

Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I warmly support the proposal, Mr. Speaker, that you should offer the Parliament of Malaya the gift of a Chair for its Speaker and also the Government's proposal to offer a post-graduate


scholarship. We would wish to associate ourselves with the congratulations offered to Malaya upon obtaining independence.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may say that I will gladly make this offer on behalf of the House of Commons—on the assumption, of course, that I shall have the warm approval of hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: In due course, this matter will be put into regular form by the passage of a Resolution. That was done in the case of Ceylon, Australia and New Zealand.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for the first week after the Summer Recess?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The Business for the first week after the Summer Recess will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 29TH OCTOBER—Debate on the Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries.

WEDNESDAY, 30TH OCTOBER—Consideration of the Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure.

There will then be an opportunity for the Opposition to debate the methods by which Private Bills are objected to.

THURSDAY, 31sT OCTOBER—The day will be available to the Opposition for a debate on a subject which they wish to arrange later.

FRIDAY, 1ST NOVEMBER—It IS expected that Prorogation will take place.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in our opinion it is for the Government to find time for a debate on the report of the committee on telephone tappings, if this report is available when we come back, and that it is not a matter for which the Opposition should be expected to find time?

Mr. Butler: I think that this is a matter that we should discuss through the usual channels.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Government make a statement before the Recess on the operations in Oman, and also on the strike at Covent Garden?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give any undertaking that further statements will be made on these subjects, but I will, of course, bring them both to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are primarily responsible.

Dame Irene Ward: Will time be found to debate the Motion standing in my name, particularly having regard to the fact that it is extremely difficult to discuss the investment policy of the Master of the Supreme Court for money awarded by the High Court in respect of infants?

[That, in the opinion of this House, the financial situation in which some infants who have been awarded substantial damages by civil actions, find themselves on reaching the age of twenty-one owing to the policy of the Master of the Supreme Court investing the money in undated War Stock, thus resulting in a serious deterioration in the capital award, does not reflect credit on the wisdom of the policies pursued; that though an alteration of policy now provides greater security, infants awarded sums in 1954 have been severely prejudiced; this House notes with surprise the variation in practice that operated in the county court and High Court, the former offering greater security; this House is further of the opinion that, in view of the machinery which could be used to transfer money awarded from the High Court to the county court and considers it to be regrettable that the parents of the infants were not advised of the possibility when the undated Stock was selected for investment; that, in view of the memorandum issued in May 1957 to infants attaining their majority pointing out the loss of capital involved and the dilemma in which interested parties are put owing to the continuing decline in the value of the Stock, this House is further of the opinion that the Master of the Supreme Court should be invited to consider what action he can take, as being responsible for the investment, to advise the infants whose security of capital should have been the main consideration, particularly in cases where the period at


which the age of 21 was reached was a short one, having regard to the responsibility which in all good faith has been imposed on the Master of the Supreme Court.]

Mr. Butler: While I do not underestimate the importance of the subject raised by my hon. Friend, I do not think that we can manage to do that before we rise for the Recess.

Mr. Beswick: The Leader of the House probably remembers that on 4th July the Prime Minister announced that arrangements would be made to cover by insurance hon. Members who sustained death or injury whilst travelling in the business of the House. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything has been done to implement those proposals? If it has not been found possible to do so, can the Leader of the House say why, in the meantime, if the principle of those proposals has been accepted, Government Departments, in circumstances in which they have not done so before, now require hon. Members to sign a form of indemnity, or what is known colloquially as a "blood chit"—a somewhat formidable term?

Mr. Butler: The arrangements made for this purpose have not yet been completed, but it is hoped to complete them to cover hon. Members. If there is anything I ought to tell the House, I will undertake to do so before the House rises.

Mr. Beswick: If these proposals are to be completed as soon as administratively feasible, could we be assured that in the meantime Government Departments will not require hon. Members to sign a form in which they state that they will not
make any claim against the Crown or against any person in the service of the Crown in respect of any loss or injury to property or person"?
This has not been enforced on previous occasions and there seems to be no reason why it should be maintained.

Mr. Butler: It is a case of passing from one system to the other. Directly we can bring in the new arrangements we can absolve hon. Members of the necessity of

signing forms of that type. If the hon. Member will let me have the form, I will consider it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As this is an innovation, will the Leader of the House look into the matter?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir; it is not an innovation. It should always have been done.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Leader of the House again consider, in the new Session, the setting up of a committee on the amenities and accommodation of this House? Will he bear in mind that owing to obstinacy in the usual channels on the question of the terms of reference, such a committee has not been set up this Session, and that consultation with such a committee would have been an advantage to the new Serjeant at Arms?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this House continually becomes an increasingly busy workshop in which Members have to work. and that there is widespread opinion in all quarters of the House that something on the lines of the Committee which was presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)should be set up to remedy matters? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, however obstinate the Patronage Secretary may be upon this matter, I have been consulted by many Members on the other side of the House who concur with the view I am now expressing?

Mr. Butler: I would not agree that there is obstinacy. Nor would I agree that anything has ever ruffled the sweet temper of the Patronage Secretary. I would say that we have had informal exchanges of views between both sides of the House, and I have myself met various right hon. and hon. Members on this matter. I am aware of the crowding, especially in the writing room, and of the other difficulties that some Members suffer, but we thought that it was not sense to set up a committee before the end of this Session. All I can do is to give an undertaking that the matter will be considered when the new Session comes.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (CONTRACTS)

Mr. Ellis Smith: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the serious allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the urgent need for an investigation and the consequent cancellation of the proposed discharges in the Royal Ordnance factories.
I know that I am not allowed to debate this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I want to put one or two points for your consideration. In the latest edition of Erskine May there has been a clarification of precedents which I have carefully studied, and if ever there was a definite case of public importance and of urgency, it is this. Therefore, I am asking for your Ruling on this definite matter of urgent and public importance.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was good enough to give me advance notice this morning that he would raise this matter, and I have considered it carefully. The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the serious allegations made by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the urgent need for an investigation and the cancellation of the proposed discharges in the Royal Ordnance factories.
My difficulty in dealing with this matter under Standing Order No. 9 arises from the fact that, in the first place, these events, according to the hon. Member for Leeds, East, happened some time ago. There was a reference to them I remember, in a Question about a week or a fortnight ago.

Mr. Denis Healey: On Monday.

Mr. Speaker: If the matter was urgent then, it could have been raised.
My other difficulty, frankly, is this. The hon. Member for Leeds, East made his speech last night, as he was quite entitled to do, on the Third Reading of

the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)Bill, when the House as a whole had turned its attention to defence, and the Minister of Supply who, if anybody, is responsible, had left the Chamber and was not able to reply then. The result is that I have heard only one side of the story. That makes me doubt whether the matter is really definite until we know the facts.
However, I have a suggestion to make. While I could not find the hon. Member's submission to come within the Standing Order, I think that circumstances have arisen which will give me a short time to spare tomorrow. If any hon. Member asks for this matter to be discussed then, perhaps the House will hear both sides of the question and will be able to form a better conclusion.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I know the history of this House and the way in which we have won our democratic rights. I know it is the duty of Mr. Speaker to defend the private Member, especially one who has the courage to raise an issue like this. Therefore, I want, first, to express my appreciation of your sympathetic approach to the question, Mr. Speaker, and to contrast that with the attitude of some about whom I would like to say something if I were outside the House.

Mr. C. Pannell: As a Leeds Member, I should like to express my appreciation of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, because it is the members of my trade union who are largely disadvantaged by this action. May I also express the delight of the House that somebody has for once raised a matter concerned with the wrongs and grievances of the natives of these islands? May I say that in spite of the short time there is for the Minister to deal with this matter tomorrow, some of us who are concerned with industry, the Royal Ordnance factories and the question which my hon. Friend has raised, are fully cognisant of the weight which must be attached to this matter and to the very serious answer which must be given from the Government Front Bench.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: We will pass from that now.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

3.39 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 29th October.
In moving this Motion, may I say that I shall be very glad to answer later any points that any hon. Member wants to raise.
The Motion is moved subject to the usual undertaking given by the Government that Standing Order No. 112 provides authority for the recall of the House by Mr. Speaker if the Government make representations to him to do so. The Government will take into account the situation or any representations made to them. I should like to make that clear. I shall, of course, be at the service of the House if hon. Members wish to raise any point with me.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I am sure that it is the desire of the House to proceed as soon as possible to the important debate on retirement pensions, to which we shall come a little later. Bearing that in mind, and also that before we reach that debate there is another Motion to be disposed of, I will be brief.
There are however, certain things which I think ought to be said before we pass this Motion. First, we are going away for what is an unusually long Recess. It is certainly a week, and perhaps a fortnight, longer than is normal, and this follows a fortnight's Recess at Whitsun.
I am a little puzzled why we are not coming back until 29th October. I gather that the reason is that the Government have no more than two days' business of their own which they wish to transact. I must say, in view of the Government's decision about the Shops Bill, that I find it an astonishing admission. It is perfectly clear that if we had had a rather shorter holiday, either at Whitsun or for the Summer Recess, the Government could have proceeded with that Bill. The Committee stage could have been taken on the Floor of the House and the whole thing could have been put through within this Session. The fact that the Government did not

do this makes it only too plain that, of course, it was not lack of time which was really responsible for the dropping of the Bill: it was the opposition from within the Tory Party.
We are also going away at a time when the House and the country are much concerned about a number of matters of great importance. Only yesterday a debate took place on the defence situation which, I think, many hon. Members would wish to pursue further. Of course, we are not able to do so. There are rumours that a new policy for Cyprus is to be worked out, and there is, of course, the economic situation, which we certainly debated quite recently but which requires our constant attention.
I think the matter which is, perhaps, giving rise to most anxiety is the situation in the Middle East. The intervention of the Government in Oman is still wrapped in a certain degree of obscurity. We have pressed the Government repeatedly to say just what the rights and wrongs of this matter are, We know perfectly well, of course, that there is this understanding with the Sultan of Oman. There is no treaty: there is an understanding. However, exactly what the Sultan's rights are in relation to the tribes in the area and in relation to the Imam has never, I think, been brought out very clearly. Moreover, we have never been given clear answers on the degree of outside intervention.
I must say for my part that our attitude on this side of the House—our tolerance, if hon. Members prefer it put this way, of the Government's attitude—was largely dependent on this fact of outside intervention. We recognise that if that was serious then, of course, the case of the Government was stronger; but, I repeat, we have not been told very much about it. We gather that the intervention has taken the form of arms from Saudi Arabia. We do not know in what quantity.
We do not know how serious this is. It may be that this will turn out to be a minor affair and that the whole thing will be settled very soon. So much the better if that is the case, but there is no denying the fact that it is not settled yet, and there remains the possibility that the situation in Oman may deteriorate and may develop in a very unfortunate way.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give us an assurance that should that happen, and should it appear, in consequence, that a real threat to peace in the Middle East exists, we shall be recalled to consider the matter, that we shall be recalled to consider the whole situation, and to take up, in particular, the question which, in that event, we should have to take up, whether this matter should not, at any rate, be reported to the Security Council of the United Nations.
I am not proposing that we should divide the House against this Motion, but I do ask for the assurance that we shall be recalled if the situation in the Middle East deteriorates.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: I think it would be a mistake if the House were to allow this Motion to pass without giving an opportunity to those of us who hold strong views on the subject to make it plain to the people that this Parliamentary Recess, contrary to some of the views which have been expressed in the national Press, is not proposed so that there can be a jollification for Members of Parliament.
There are those of us on both sides of the House who believe that Parliament is not a legislative sausage machine which ought to sit continuously the whole time, and that opportunities should be afforded to Members of Parliament to make contact with their constituencies and their constituents, opportunity to familiarise themselves with problems, both at home and abroad, which are of considerable importance.
I notice that it has been suggested in one of the organs of the national Press that there is a demand for an extra long Summer Recess of about three months because there has been an increase in the salary of Members of Parliament. I am sure that we Members of Parliament know perfectly well that a gross income of £1,750 a year does not produce a net income of anything like that amount, and that the net income of a Member of Parliament is certainly not as high as that of Lobby correspondents. It would, at least, be more honest if they were to demonstrate to the electors of this country that out of that net income it would be quite impossible for Members

of Parliament to enjoy luxurious holidays in the South of France.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is straying a little from the Motion.

Mr. McAdden: I am not straying half as far from that as I should like to stray from this House for a while in order to enjoy the Recess, Mr. Speaker.
However, I will try to come more particularly to the Motion and say that in my view it is desirable that this House should have a Recess not so that hon. Members may indulge in jollifications, but so that they may visit their constituencies.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: I live in my constituency.

Mr. McAdden: And I live in mine, but let us face the fact that there are a number of Members on both sides of the House who, for one reason or another, cannot live in their constituencies, and that that makes it necessary for them to make special journeys to their constituencies if they are to visit them at all. Among them is the Leader of the Opposition, who does not live in his constituency. Of course, I am not blaming him for that or holding it against him. It is necessary that we should have Parliamentary Recesses so that opportunity may be afforded to us to make closer contact with our constituents.
It will be well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House that part of the Parliamentary Recess will be taken up with attendance at party conferences. It may be that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who may not very much wish to go to party conferences. Nevertheless, opportunities ought to be afforded to them to go if they want to.
I think that over and above these considerations we should remember that Parliament exists not only for the purpose of passing laws—some of us think that too many laws are passed—but for deliberation on matters which it is well we should have time to study.
Moreover, a Session makes excessive demands upon Ministers of the Crown, who are compelled to be here in almost continuous attendance during the time that Parliament is sitting. There is a good deal to be said for giving Ministers


of the Crown opportunity to attend to the control of their Departments. I hope that this Parliamentary Recess will afford opportunity to Ministers to have holidays, which many of them were unable to have last year, but, in addition, to exercise closer control over their Departments, for that is essential in the national interest.
I am, therefore, glad that we are to have a long Recess. I hope that hon. Members will decide that it is a useful and desirable thing that we should have a fairly long Recess. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition shares these views, and I am particularly glad that, in sharing these views, he has given some reasons why we should concern ourselves about affairs even while we are in Recess.

Miss Margaret Herbison: What about the old-age pensioners?

Mr. McAdden: The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is, perhaps, a little worrying that we should be going into Recess at a time—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the old-age pensioners?"] I am addressing you, Mr. Speaker, so I cannot understand these noisy interruptions.
I was saying that the Leader of the Opposition has, very rightly, drawn our attention to the fact that we are going into Recess at a time when there is a disturbing situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Austen Albu: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden)addressing the House at such great length so that we should not have the time to discuss the position of old-age pensioners?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. McAdden: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you have reinforced my view that as long as one addresses oneself to the subject before the House, under your direction, one is much more in order than those who raise points of order which are not points of order at all, thereby delaying discussion of subjects of great importance.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Member not realise that the House is waiting to discuss old-age pensioners?

Mr. McAdden: I should be glad to reply to that interruption if I had the slightest idea what was said. It may be that because the hon. and learned Member is not in his normal attire his voice has not the strength to carry this far.
The Leader of the Opposition has urged us, fairly and rightly, that when considering the duration of the Recess we should bear in mind seriously the disturbing situation in the Middle East. Of course it is disturbing, but it would be considerably more disturbing if the House were in continuous session and the Leader of the Opposition were able to make some of the speeches which he made about twelve months ago in an even more painful situation.
Therefore, for all these reasons, I believe that it is a good thing that the House should have a reasonable period of Recess during which hon. Members might take a holiday, which all other people in the country are able to take. It is a good thing that the opportunity should be taken for hon. Members to visit their constituencies, to remain in continuous contact with them, to attend party conferences, and afterwards come back refreshed— —

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to have wearisome repetition?

Mr. Speaker: I was watching the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden)and, as far as I could see, the recurrence of certain ideas in his speech did not amount to wearisome repetition, but I think that the House is ready to come to a decision in this matter.

Mr. McAdden: And I was about to come to a conclusion as well, Sir.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Mahon): I should not have risen but for one remark made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). I know perfectly well that on these occasions it is always the function of the Opposition to say that the Recess is too long and the function of the Government to say that it is necessary, but the right hon. Gentleman's argument that a shorter Recess would enable the Government to introduce the Shops Bill in this House and pass it through all its stages is beneath his skill as a Parliamentarian. If the Shops Bill were to be passed, it would require a Parliamentary Recess


three or four weeks shorter than the one now proposed.
This Parliamentary Recess of three months is of great importance to Departmental administration. It is the function of Ministers to go round the country to look after the administration of their Departments and to work out their policy. I hope that in future we shall not have this party wrangling as to how long the Recess should be.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider one suggestion. In the years that I have been in the House I have come to realise that the last two weeks in July are a very bad time for Parliamentary business. The programme becomes increasingly crowded and there are many functions in the constituencies to which hon. Members ought to be attending. We ought to do as the German Bundestag has done—adjourn earlier in July to come back earlier in the autumn. I leave it to my right hon. Friend to consider that suggestion in the intervening months. He will find a measure of support for it on all sides of the House.

4.7 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: I have never previously been engaged in any of the wrangles on this subject in all the years that I have been in the House, but I intend to engage in this one. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden)and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). Whatever duties hon. Members have in their constituencies can be attended to in less than three months. We Members of the House were returned to work here. What we do in the constituencies is for our own political benefit, or for the political benefit of our parties [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
The commodity which is in the shortest supply in the House is time. I should like to give one or two examples. The first of the nationalised industries, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board was created by the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland)Act, 1943. We have not had one debate in all the ensuing fourteen years on the reports and accounts of that organisation. Millions of money are involved and hon. Members representing the Highlands have made many attempts

to secure time so that the work of this organisation should be discussed as laid down in the regulations. We were once told by a right hon. Gentleman who was Leader of the House that because we had not had a debate for all the years since the Board was set up that was a good reason for not having one then. Now, happily, he is in another place.
My constituents take an entirely different view. They regard this failure to debate the subject as a piece of clowning, because many of them have been waiting fourteen years for electric light and power to which they are entitled under the Act. Hon. Members representing the Highlands, from all parties, a few weeks ago had to seek the assistance of the statutory Committee on nationalised industries, to get their support for a debate in the House, the very place to which we are returned to do our public duty.
Another example is that a week ago we had a debate on one of the oldest industries in Great Britain or even in the world. [Laughter.] I refer to fishing. If the murmur round the House implies that I have a connection with the fishing industry, I should point out that I held a number of appointments in the industry but I resigned them all before I made my second speech in the House, and I gave up a considerable income by doing so. The debate last week came at the end of a long debate on the economic situation. It began at 10.5 p.m. in a very thin House, and I do not blame hon. Members for having gone home. Every hon. Member who spoke was hostile to the Government's proposals. This old industry which has given so much service to Britain in the past— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Motion before the House will not sustain a debate on the fishing industry.

Sir D. Robertson: I mentioned that only as a very concrete example of how, at the wrong time of night and ending in the early morning, a debate was held on the fishing industry at a time when the pressure that should be exercised by a free Press in supporting speeches in the House was entirely missing. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir)made an outstanding speech. It received one inch in the Highland daily newspapers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sack


the editor."] The speeches of the Opposition did not get even an inch, none of them. I regard that as a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition must so regard it, and so should other Members of Parliament, because it is entirely wrong. If we rise for three months, who will run the country? Not us. [Interruption.] Parliament will have no control whatsoever. The Executive will have a limited control and I certainly hope that they all get the holiday they deserve.
Today we only reached Question 45 for oral answer and the remaining sixty-four Questions on the Paper did not receive oral answers. One important Question about the nationalised industries, which are exerting great inflationary pressures, was not reached, whereas we discussed where the late Keir Hardy's monument should go. I have a high regard for him, as most democrats must have, but those industries——

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Sir D. Robertson: I am disappointed at the holiday mood reflected on both sides of the House. On this day forty years ago was fought one of the bloodiest battles in the history of this country. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. Men from every constituency in Britain were involved. Many of them were boys.

Mr. Speaker: Order. An hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order. Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: The hon. Gentleman is raising the question of the failure to obtain time to discuss important issues, Mr. Speaker. Is it a fact within his knowledge that by his very action he is preventing us from getting time to discuss the important question of old-age pensions?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what is within the hon. Member's knowledge.

Sir D. Robertson: No man can accuse me of wasting Parliamentary time. I am just as conscious of the needs of old people as any hon. Member.

Mr. Shurmer: Then come into the Lobby with us.

Sir D. Robertson: I will finish what I have to say and I will not be long. I was referring to the third battle of Ypres or what is known as the Battle of Passchendaele.

Mr. Shurmer: We were in it.

Sir D. Robertson: I got up today with great deliberation and determination to say what I had to say, because it is all in order. I should be failing in my duty to those who died, as many did, if I did not insist on this House having adequate time to discuss its public business. We are not having it with a three months' Recess. Two months would be adequate. They would be adequate for Ministers, adequate for everyone, and I urge my right hon. Friend to give consideration to what I have said because I am voicing views widely held outside this House. I have no knowledge about what the newspapers have said about holidays. I know that few of us can afford to have a long holiday. I feel that we should be here. If the Government do not know what to discuss, we will soon find some things to discuss, and the examples I have given today are worthy of the consideration and thought of all hon. Members.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think that the House would like to come to a conclusion on this matter in view of the urgent business which we have to consider afterwards. I will be brief in replying to the points made by each of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken.
First, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I would point out that the length of the Recess this year is actually only six days more than last year and one day less than the year before, so I do not think we are putting up a proposition which is in any way unreasonable. The right hon. Gentleman then, complained that we had completed our business and had only two days' business left for what is called the spill-over. That shows the efficiency with which the business of the Government is conducted, and the fact that we were also able to afford an extra week's holiday at Whitsun is a good thing from the point of view of Parliament and its efficient conduct. In any case, as long as I have the honour to be Leader of the House I shall regard a time of Recess, as was said by my hon.


Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), not as a period of jollification but as a period when many of us have important duties to perform.
The right hon. Gentleman then referred to certain important matters which might arise. In passing, I would only support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)about the Shops Bill, namely, that we could not have got the Bill through in the time, even with a fortnight or so more. The Bill took nearly six months in passing through the House of Lords and it would have been impossible for us to get a Bill of that size and nature through this House in any time we could foresee. Therefore, I adhere to the argument which I used on this point earlier.
The other questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman all add up to this: if there is a threat to peace, will the Government recall the House? The Government on previous occasions have given assurances, and I give an assurance again today, to recall the House if circumstances warrant such a recall. I say without hesitation that we should regard a threat to peace as an occasion on which the House should be recalled. The House will remember that last summer there were certain events of considerable importance and gravity and we had no hesitation on that occasion in recalling the House, and the Prime Minister made a statement to the House.
I do not think that the events to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, in what he described as the broad area of the Middle East, are likely to have the result of leading to a threat to peace. If that is any assurance to him, I am glad to give it. Equally I give the assurance that if there is any threat to peace, the House will be recalled and a proper statement made. I do not think that the other subjects he mentioned, namely, defence policy and Cyprus, are questions upon which it will be necessary to recall the House. Again, however, I reserve the position. If circumstances warrant it, we shall certainly so act.
In reference to defence, it is interesting to read in some of our more prominent journals that there is a degree of disagreement among Her Majesty's Government on the subject of defence. I should like to take this opportunity to say that.

as far as I am aware, there is no disagreement whatever on the subject of defence, and there is absolute certainty as to the course we are pursuing, a course which is at the same time of benefit to the economy and of benefit to the defence Services themselves.
Lastly, in relation to the economic situation, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the situation is one which must be a source of anxiety to all sensible people— —

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Where is the Prime Minister?

Mr. Butler: —because in a country which is involved at the moment in such prosperity, and where so many demands have already been acceded to in the form of additional reward, there is naturally anxiety about the cost/wage inflation which might ensue. The Government have their ideas on how to deal with this situation and I do not think it will be necessary to recall Parliament for the specific purpose to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but again I reserve the position of the Government that, if necessary, we should not hesitate to take that course.
It only remains for me to refer to the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). My right hon. Friend referred to the possibility of behaving like the German Parliament and adjourning in the middle of July. We have usually behaved in a different manner and have adjourned at a little later date. In fact, in earlier days, we went on to the 10th or 12th August. [HON. MEMBERS: "Grouse-shooting."] I believe that that was for reasons of convenience which are not quite as prevalent today as they were then.
Nevertheless, any suggestion put by my hon. Friend will certainly have my consideration. I think that it has been more convenient on this occasion, and I believe that it will be more convenient on future occasions, to finish the business which we have in hand. Anybody attending the Royal Commission in another place recently will be aware of the immense programme of legislation, private and public, which has been carried through successfully up to date, therefore giving us an opportunity of taking a well-


deserved departure from this Assembly for a short time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to the fact that we have not discussed the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and its policy. This is a matter of the nationalised industries, and under present arrangements three days are allotted to the nationalised industries in the Session. Three days will, therefore, be taken for the nationalised industries in the next Session. The choice of the subject on the nationalised industries is left to the Opposition. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to criticise the Opposition and not to criticise the Government in the choice of subjects for those days. If the Opposition care to debate the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, I can say on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that he will be glad of a diversion to discuss that matter instead of some other matters which are to be debated within his own Department.

Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend is aware that year after year there have been complaints from both sides of the House that the reports and accounts of the principal nationalised industries, notably the National Coal Board, are always discussed nine to twelve months after they have been published. This year, I have asked him this question on three different occasions: does his statement today mean that we are not to be able to discuss last year's reports and accounts until perhaps the early part of 1958, which makes the whole of the debate quite valueless?

Mr. Butler: It is hoped to take some of the nationalised industry days early in the next Session. Under present arrangements that is the best that we can do. I have been in touch with my hon. Friend and many others who hold similar views as well as with hon. Members opposite, and I am aware that there is a desire for further opportunities to discuss the nationalised industries. If we could find the Parliamentary time—and it must be remembered that we have set up a Select Committee to consider the nationalised industries—we should be very glad to do so, for I am satisfied in my own mind that the House has not sufficient opportunities for expressing its interest in the nationalised industries. If we can find the House further oppor-

tunities we shall be only too glad to do so.
I will say no more in answer to the arguments which have been raised except to reiterate the assurance that if necessary the House will be recalled. I should like to remind the House that one of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), said in 1947 that it was important for Members
to renew contact with their constituents,
it was important for them to bring them up
in the path of light and learning,
it was important for Members of Parliament to have time for reading and it was important for Members of Parliament to improve themselves and
help in the economic drive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th August, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 2476.]
All these things stand as true today as they stood when that was said by that profound Leader of the House ten years ago. I therefore appeal to the House to pass this Motion and to get on to the other business. I only hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland will not hope or wish that I should go too early to another place, because I have no wish to do so.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestion made by hon. Members opposite this afternoon that the discussion of this Motion has prevented an adequate discussion of old-age pensions is completely false in view of the fact that all they had to do was to withdraw the Motion against my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson)? May I also ask him to remember that on a previous occasion, not very long ago, when the Opposition put down a Motion on the subject of old-age pensions, they indulged, instead of debating it, in personal spite against my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Gaitskell: We did not choose that this Motion should be debated today. We should be quite happy for it to be left on the Order Paper and debated when we come back.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday. 29th October.

HON. MEMBER FOR DUMFRIES

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move,
That this House has taken note of the action of the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Dumfries, which led to the dismissal of the Editor of the Dumfries and Galloway Standard and strongly deprecates such action as being inconsistent with his tenure of office as a Minister.
It gives me no pleasure to move this Motion; it is an unpleasant public duty. I make the assumption that the prosecutor frequently dislikes the task which he undertakes. I take the view that the honour of Parliament is at stake.
May I point out that I bear the Joint Under-Secretary of State no personal ill will; indeed, as long ago as 2nd July, a month ago, I told him the whole story as it had been told to me, which is substantially the story which I shall tell in moving the Motion. The Joint Under-Secretary will recall that on that occasion he thanked me for putting the matter before him so frankly. I told him that I should not reach any hasty decision to raise the matter in public, and I have not done so. Indeed, I first raised the matter by means of a Parliamentary Question on 23rd July, three weeks after I had given notice to the Joint Under-Secretary.
I shall be very pleased indeed if the name of the Joint Under-Secretary can be completely cleared today, but I must say that it cannot be cleared merely by assertions. It is my responsibility to submit some evidence to justify the Motion which I put on the Order Paper.
Mr. A. G. Williamson was appointed managing editor of the Dumfries and Galloway Standard in April, 1954. Mr. Williamson is a staunch supporter of the Liberal Party. He believed that the newspaper was the same. In August that year the Joint Under-Secretary asked the editor not to differentiate so much between National Liberalism and Liberalism. At the beginning of September that year, the Joint Under-Secretary further pressed the editor in the matter and said that he wished to interview the directors. That was arranged, and he attended a meeting of the directors towards the end of the month, to be precise on 29th September.
The editor remained a Liberal and wrote accordingly. There was continuing friction between the editor and the Joint Under-Secretary throughout 1955 and 1956. In the autumn of last year, at the period called "Time of Suez", the editor condemned the Government's action. The Joint Under-Secretary was not unnaturally very annoyed with the editor; he complained to the editor and to the directors again. The directors met on 20th November and considered the position, with the additional fact before them that the Liberal Federation in Dumfriesshire had by then decided to select a Liberal candidate to oppose the Joint Under-Secretary at the next Election. At this meeting, the directors decided to invite the Joint Under-Secretary to a meeting on the following Saturday, 24th November. May I quote the letter? It has been published in the newspapers and I think I should quote it, in fairness to the Joint Under-Secretary. It is dated 22nd November:
Dear Major,—Following upon the decision by the Liberal Federation to contest the seat at the next General Election, the directors had a meeting on Tuesday morning to consider the new situation which has arisen, and it was felt that a word with you would be helpful. Could you come to my room at 11.30 on Saturday morning, when they will be there to see you? If not, could you let me know before ten on Friday night? If I do not hear, I will assume you will be present. Many thanks. Regards,—Yours sincerely, A. G. Williamson.
As the Prime Minister said the other day, this letter was written in very cordial terms. May I ask the Prime Minister to ascertain whether the Joint Under-Secretary himself had previously asked individual directors that he should be invited to the meeting? Had he himself in mind asking that a meeting should be convened at which he would be present? Did the Joint Under-Secretary know that the editor was to be required to leave the meeting before the business started? Hon. Members should bear in mind the cordial terms of this letter from the editor. Yet when the meeting was held, before the chairman allowed the business to start, he required the editor to leave the meeting, a meeting in the editor's own room. The editor did so under protest.
Did not the Joint Under-Secretary object to being involved in what was beginning to look very like a plot against the editor? Was the future editorship discussed at this meeting? Was this meeting held to discuss the future policy of the paper?


If it were, was not it rather odd that the editor was not permitted to attend the meeting?
Hon. Members will, of course, have noted the purpose of the meeting. I believe that this is the meeting at which the Joint Under-Secretary exercised improper influence with the directors to have the editor sacked, and I believe that he used the same influence with directors privately. I believe that that is why the editor was required to leave the meeting. It must have been an interesting meeting.
The Prime Minister will, I think, be interested in what I have to say now about this meeting. It must have been an interesting meeting, because the minute of the meeting has since been deleted from the firm's minute book and another substituted in which the Joint Under-Secretary's part in the proceedings has been omitted. The relative part of the minute of another meeting at which consideration was given to the question of supporting the Joint Under-Secretary or an official Liberal candidate was also deleted and the paragraph rewritten by one of the directors. The minutes, of course, are normally looked after by the secretary of the company.
Hon. Members are aware of the exchanges in the House since I first raised the matter in a Question on 23rd July. I have a letter from the editor, dated Thursday, 25th July, telling me that the Joint Under-Secretary had asked the directors to issue a statement to the effect that his presence at board meetings and his numerous approaches to directors had nothing to do with the dismissal of the editor. Accordingly, I was not at all surprised when on the Saturday morning I discovered that on Friday, 26th July, the following day, the directors obliged by issuing a statement which has had wide circulation—the statement to which, no doubt, the Prime Minister referred the other day. Perhaps I should again repeat that statement. It said:
The board of directors of Messrs. Thomas Hunter, Watson and Company, Limited, make it clear that the former managing editor of the 'Dumfries and Galloway Standard', the newspaper owned by the company, was dismissed because the board were dissatisfied with his conduct of matters unconnected with politics.
His dismissal was the decision of the board. It was not at the instigation of the member of Parliament for the constituency. The

board's decision was in no way influenced by the member of Parliament. Their decision was unknown to him, and he had no part whatsoever in choosing the present editor.
Mr. Williamson, commenting on the statement, said:
There would appear to be some confusion of thought here. Only last night the chairman said that the board was dissatisfied with my work and considered that I was going towards Labour in my writings.
Now in the statement, issued today, they say that I was not sacked for political reasons. With two such obvious contradictions the statement is worthless.
He goes on to say:
No dissatisfaction with any aspect of my work was ever expressed to me.
I hope hon. Members have noted the dates. I have the letter of 25th July saying that the Joint Under-Secretary had asked for the statement. The statement was published on 26th July, and we all read it in the newspapers on 27th July. I was not surprised to read it. It is clear enough that the reason for the editor's dismissal was very much connected with politics. There was no dissatisfaction with any other aspect of his work. He could not be told why he was sacked. He was dismissed instantly on 19th June. He was given two months' salary and he was told that there would be a new editor in the editor's chair the following morning.
When I suggested the other day that the Joint Under-Secretary had a continuing interest in this affair because not only had he played a part in having the ex-editor sacked, but had played a part in recruiting his successor, a great many hon. Members on both sides of the House thought that I was going a bit too far and that the Joint Under-Secretary could not possibly have done that. I know that many friends on the Press thought that that bit of evidence, which I had submitted, was just not true. This statement from the directors says that the Joint Under-Secretary played no part at all in the recruitment of the new editor—
Their decision was unknown to him, and he had no part whatsoever in choosing the present editor.
The Joint Under-Secretary, on the same day, isued a statement in which he said:
The whole thing is absolutely ludicrous. I had nothing to do with it. The first thing that I knew about it was when I returned from abroad and found a letter from one of the paper's directors. It said: It may interest you to know that a new editor has been appointed.


Any dispute was between Mr. Williamson and his own board—not between Mr. Williamson and myself.
That appeared in the Scottish Daily Express of Saturday, 27th July.
The newspaper goes on to say:
Mr. Macpherson spent yesterday at Langholm for the annual Riding of the Marches Festival, an event he has not missed since he became M.P. (Nat. Lib. then)in 1945. Before he returned to London he spoke about his meeting last November with the Standard directors. Mr. Macpherson said: I was invited to attend and we discussed the paper's future policy. Mr. Williamson was asked to leave the meeting, and he did so, but no mention was made of the fact that he might be sacked. About two months later one of the directors asked me if I knew of anyone able to take Mr. Williamson's place in the eventuality of his dismissal. I thought about it and mentioned Mr. Ferguson' (the new editor who replaced Mr. Williamson).
I did observe some inconsistency in those two comments attributed to the Under-Secretary on the same day and separated by about three inches of newsprint in the Scottish Daily Express.
How can the directors, together with the Joint Under-Secretary, decide the future policy of the newspaper without taking the editor into their confidence, unless they have decided to get a new editor? The hon. Gentleman has said that that was not discussed and that he knew nothing about it, but they discussed the future policy of the paper in the absence of the editor. It must sound a little fishy to anyone trying to get at the facts. The Under-Secretary has confessed that he played at least some part in choosing the new editor. His memory improved in the clearer atmosphere of Langholm.
The editor was not given notice. He was sacked on the spot, with no reasons given, after the Under-Secretary had found a successor and after the successor had had time to work his notice to his previous employers. I have already indicated that the editor was given two, months' salary the morning he was sacked. He has claimed compensation for wrongful dismissal. His claim is supported by the Newspaper Society and the Guild of Editors. A sum in compensation has been offered to the editor—his claim has been recognised—but it has been refused as inadequate. Mr. Williamson has been invited to appear on television, like Mr. Randolph Churchill,

but, unlike Mr. Randolph Churchill, he has declined.
I claim that on the evidence given to me—and I am acting only on the evidence given to me and which I put forward because I believe that I have a public duty so to do—the Under-Secretary has been in the whole affair up to the neck. He has acted as a spokesman for Her Majesty's Government. Although I do not draw a subtle distinction between Ministers and Members, as do some people, none the less it was as a Minister that he made objections. The editor attacked the Government. In my view—and I believe it to be the view of the House—if my evidence is accepted and these things are shown to be true, the Joint Under-Secretary will be seen to have behaved in a way inconsistent with his tenure of office as a Minister.
It is clear that the evidence available to the Prime Minister, and on which he announced his decision the other day, is in conflict with mine. His evidence is wholly inconsistent with mine, but I think that I have shown that the Prime Minister's witnesses, the Under-Secretary and the directors, are unreliable and have given conflicting evidence. In considering the Motion, the House has constituted itself as a court which, in the circumstances, is being asked to form a judgment. It may easily be said that the facts are still in dispute and, accordingly, I appeal to the Prime Minister to appoint an independent person of standing to conduct an inquiry and to report the facts to him and, through him, to the House before we reach a decision.
I do not want any stigma to attach to the Under-Secretary if he is the complete innocent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course not. If he is innocent, let his name properly be cleared. It cannot be cleared by assertion. Let someone be appointed who can cross-examine the witnesses.

Sir Roland Jennings: As the whole of the hon. Member's speech has been one of assertion, does he not think that he should have confirmed some of his statements before coming to the House and making them?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member does not appreciate that I am counsel for the


prosecution. I am putting one side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course. I am giving evidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have been giving evidence since I rose to speak and surely no hon. Member with all that evidence in his possession—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hearsay."] It is not hearsay. This evidence comes from a man, most of it comes from Mr. Williamson, who is in a better position to know what happened than anyone else.
I suggest that the independent person of standing who could very properly conduct the inquiry, cross-examine the witnesses and find where the truth is, might be a judge of the Court of Session. If it is considered to be too political a matter for that—although I do not think that it is, because it is only facts which we are trying to establish—it might be done by two Privy Councillors, or by two ex-Secretaries of State. My concern is to get the facts. If the Prime Minister will adopt that proposition, I will gladly and only too readily seek leave to withdraw the Motion. Otherwise, I will ask the House to accept my evidence and support the Motion in the Lobby.

Sir James Hutchison: Sir James Hutchison (Glasgow, Scotstoun) rose——

Mr. Fraser: If the Prime Minister forces us to do that and orders his supporters into the Lobby to smother the Motion, he is not likely to be praised for supporting a colleague, but rather to be blamed for letting down Parliament.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members
 rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Mr. Grimond.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Before my hon. Friend sits down— —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have called the next speaker.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I beg to second the Motion.
Like the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), I take absolutely no pleasure in referring to this matter and I much regret the circumstances which have caused it. I certainly have no desire to pursue a personal vendetta with the

hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), from whom I have received a great many courtesies, nor do I want to be long, as we have other and very important matters with which to deal.
The main issue, which seems to be important and simple, is one which should be cleared up. It is whether the hon. Member advised the directors of the Dumfries and Galloway Standard to dismiss their editor. I should have thought that most people in the House would have said that if he did do that, it was an improper thing to do. It would be improper for any Member of Parliament, but certainly improper for a Minister to recommend to the directors that they should dismiss the editor of a local paper. That appears to be the main issue.
I stress that the giving of such advice would be objectionable even though the directors had not acted upon it. It becomes more objectionable if they did act upon it, but it is not a complete defence to such an accusation for a Minister to say that he did ask for the editor to be dismissed for political reasons, but, in point of fact, that was not done and he was dismissed for some other reason.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Hon. Members on this side of the House are in a dilemma. What code is alleged to have been contravened, or what crime is alleged to have been committed?

Mr. Grimond: No crime has been alleged, but there are certain methods of conduct and behaviour which are generally agreed. This is not a point worth arguing. I should think that most hon. Members would say that going to a board of directors and asking for the dismissal of an editor is something of which to disapprove.
While taking that view, I do not hold the view that a Member, Minister, or anyone else may not express views about a paper's policy. On the contrary, I think that newspapers on the whole are well able to look after themselves, and if anyone feels that he is wronged or aggrieved by a paper, he can try to get the editor to change his methods. However, for a Minister, or even a Member, to do even that may very often be unwise and he should be extremely careful about how he does it. [Laughter.] What I have in


mind is that if one has a complaint against the policy of a paper, or what it says, the first thing one does is to go to the editor and not to the directors.
I wholeheartedly disagree with something that the Prime Minister said on 25th July, when he indicated that in his view it was a mitigating circumstance that the paper was local and small. At any rate, he rather implied that. It seems to me far more objectionable for a Minister to go to the directors of a small local newspaper than to the directors of a national daily. If he were to go to the directors of the News Chronicle or Daily Telegraph and ask them to change their policy I have no doubt that he would be battling with an institution well able to look after itself. But it is a slightly different thing to go to a local paper as a Minister, especially in these days when some local newspapers are in considerable difficulty.

Mr. Nicholson: The hon. Member is giving his case away.

Mr. Grimond: The hon. Member says that I am giving my case away. I am not concerned how he makes up his mind. I want to put my point of view. If he does not agree with it he will have an opportunity of expressing his view.
There is considerable confusion about what happened. The hon. Member for Hamilton has made a suggestion that some sort of fact-finding committee should be set up. There certainly is considerable information to clear up. We know that the Minister went to see the directors in November of last year. I believe he was asked to go, and no doubt there was nothing improper about that—although, looking back, he might now consider that it would have been wiser not to remain when the directors began to discuss various things after the editor had been asked to leave. Two months later, according to a statement made by the hon. Member and reported in the Scottish Daily Express, as the hon. Member for Hamilton has said, one of the directors asked the hon. Member to suggest a successor to Mr. Williamson. The hon. Member does not deny that he did suggest a successor.
On the day that Mr. Williamson was abruptly dismissed the directors put out this wholly unsatisfactory statement which has been referred to by the hon. Member

for Hamilton, in which they say that Mr. Williamson was dismissed not because they were dissatisfied with his conduct over politics. According to Mr. Williamson, no other subject of dissatisfaction had been mentioned, while it was notorious that there was disagreement over the line he was taking on Suez and the position of a Liberal candidate. Further, there is this curious discrepancy, in that they say that the hon. Member did not know the decision and had no part in choosing the new editor, which is contradicted by the hon. Member himself.
When the matter was raised on 25th July it was the subject of a considered statement by the Prime Minister. If no representations had been made by the hon. Member about the dismissal of the editor; if he did not make any such representations and if he never advised the directors to dismiss the editor, one would have thought that the Prime Minister would have made that point crystal clear, because that is surely the main point at issue. He did not do so. His statement implies that the hon. Member did interf and take some action, but the Prime Minister says that it was not an improper action for the hon. Member to take as a Member. Further, he could be taken to imply that if the hon. Member had been acting as a Minister what he did might have been considered to be improper.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan) indicated dissent.

Mr. Grimond: The Prime Minister shakes his head, but he did draw a distinction in the matter—a distinction which I find quite unacceptable and which was quite irrelevant if he did not think the distinction mattered. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison)and I put to the Prime Minister quite clearly that pressure had been brought to bear upon the newspaper. The Prime Minister did not deny it. Yet this is the main point at issue.
The matter was again raised this week, when I must confess that the Prime Minister came much nearer to giving a denial which, in my view, would do a very great deal to clear his hon. Friend. He said:
Since then I have made some further inquiries and I am absolutely satisfied that the


dismissal of the editor of the journal in question was not the result of any representations or action by my hon. Friend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 1069.]
But again the Prime Minister became rather equivocal later when questioned by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who asked him if he knew why the editor had been dismissed. The Prime Minister then said that he did, and when the right hon. Gentleman asked why, the Prime Minister said that it was because it was the decision of the board of directors. Of course it was the decision of the board of directors; there is no dispute about that. No one suggested that the Joint Under-Secretary himself threw the editor out of his office. And there may well have been other considerations in the minds of the board of directors, as well as the advice given by the hon. Member. The point at issue is, did or did not the hon. Member advise the board of directors to get rid of the editor? I believe that the Prime Minister has been either too subtle or too cautious in answering this question. It is to be regretted that the hon. Member himself has not been able to deny or confirm what has been alleged. I do not blame him for that.

Sir James Hutchison: I am obliged to the hon. Member for showing me more courtesy, in allowing me to put a question, than was shown to my hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). Does not he and the hon. Member for Hamilton consider that this may well be a question primarily for the Press Council? Is it not a fact that the Press Council has considered it and has not supported the allegation being made from the benches opposite?

Mr. Grimond: I quite agree that that is a possible view. It may he a matter for the Press Council, but it is also a matter for the House as it concerns a Minister.
I am not blaming the hon. Member for not making a denial or confirmation. I know that he would probably like to do that, but he has been acting on advice. But if his case is that the whole issue is a mare's nest, because he never gave any such advice to the directors, as alleged, it would seem to be a pity that no one can come to the Dispatch Box and simply say so. We need an assurance that at no time did the hon. Member advise or

bring pressure to bear upon the directors of the Dumfries and Galloway Standard to get them to dismiss their editor. Furthermore, the Government should make it clear that if he had done such a thing it would have been improper—because I think that most hon. Members would agree about that in spite of what some have said. That is the point at issue, and that is the point which has not so far been cleared up by any statement or answers to questions in this House.

Mr. John Rodgers: Will the hon. Member, as Leader of the Liberal Party, confirm or deny to the House that he has very often, or on occasion, been asked for advice by the directors or editor of the News Chronicle—and whether or not he has refused to give it?

Mr. Grimond: I wish that I were continually asked my advice by the directors of the News Chronicle. I have said that I think that there is nothing improper about the hon. Member's giving advice; the only question is whether he advised the sacking of the editor.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I have seldom heard a speech which interested me more than the one to which I have just listened. Apparently it is all right for the Prime Minister to go to the editor or the board of directors of a great national newspaper and make a complaint or a fuss, but it is quite wrong for a junior Minister or a Member of Parliament to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] The hon. Member does not deny that that is what he said.

Mr. Grimond: I am anxious to get on with this business. I have made a speech. I did not say that, but I do not intend to get up and deny everything that I did not say.

Mr. Nicholson: It is within the recollection of the House that the hon. Member said that it would be all right for the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—to go to the editor of a great national newspaper. I take it that it would be quite all right for a Labour Prime Minister to complain to the Daily Herald if it wrote Conservative articles.
I have seldom heard a more flimsy case put up to this House. If the editor of a local, Surrey newspaper said that the hon.


Member for Farnham should be shot at dawn he might well be right, although I would have some doubts about it. I should then be fully entitled to protest to him, and he would be fully entitled to tell me to run away and play. It is reducing our political life to a farce if Members of Parliament cannot complain to local newspapers. The Press has not been nationalised yet, and they can tell hon Members to go somewhere else.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not usually associate the name of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson)with the editorial columns of a paper, but rather with the advertisement columns and connected with a liquid which is not produced in Dumfriesshire.
I ask the House not to regard this as a trifling matter which has grown up to something of abnormal importance. After all, the sacking of an editor denotes a trend in politics, and a large number of political crises have been caused by editors being sacked, especially in the Liberal Party, and when liberalism was at the transition stage between Liberalism and Socialism. There was a great editor, Mr. H. W. Massingham, who was driven out of the old Daily Chronicle, and driven out of the Nation, and I believe, he was driven out of somewhere else, too.
What is here at issue is not so much the rights and wrongs of an individual, although that is an important matter, but the fact that pressure was exercised by vested interests to influence public opinion. Another disagreeable fact about this case is that the editor has not only been sacked; he has also been smeared by the sudden discovery, after the facts came to light, that this had nothing to do with his editorial policy at all. It has been quite obvious to those of us who know the district and the circumstances, and the political atmosphere of the south-west of Scotland, that this was a plot to get rid of an editor who had courage and independent-mindedness and who had become something of a thorn in the side of the Tory Party in that district.
A regrettable thing about this is that it is an attempt to get rid of independent local journalism and to establish in its

place the stereotyped leading article emanating from the Tory Central Office.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: What about the Daily Herald?

Mr. Hughes: I do not represent the Daily Herald—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Daily Worker?"] This is not the first attempt which has been made to suppress disagreeable critics and troublesome people in this part of Scotland. Hon. Members who know Dumfries will know that it was the place where Burns lived at one time and where he died. It is interesting to note that an attempt was made to sack Burns in just the same way as this editor has been sacked. Unfortunately, no Joint Under-Secretary of State was there to carry out the dirty work and stab the editor in the back, and there was not a Prime Minister who was prepared to support him.
Burns asked questions which are relevant to this debate. At the time when an attempt was made to sack him, because he asked awkward questions, one of the questions he asked was, "What is politics?" His reply was:
Politics is a science wherewith, by means of nefarious cunning"—
this may appeal to the Leader of the House—
and hypocritical pretence"—
this may appeal to the Prime Minister—
we govern civil policies for the emolument of ourselves and our adherents.

Mr. Nicholson: Did not Burns live in South Ayrshire?

Mr. Hughes: These questions are relevant to the argument today. Not only did Burns ask, "What is politics?" he also asked, "What is a Minister?" And this question applies to the Minister whose conduct is now under discussion. Burns answered his question by saying:
A Minister is an unprincipled fellow"—
I would not say that about this Minister—
the influence of whom, by hereditary or acquired wealth,"—
I would not say that about this Minister—
by superior abilities,"—
I would not say that about this Minister—
or a lucky combination of circumstances, obtains a principal place in the administration of the affairs of government.
Of course, an attempt was made to sack Burns. Happily, it did not succeed.


But it was not said about Burns that they would sack him for something else. I have no doubt that if the present Administration, or their supporters, had lived at that time, they would not have said that they wanted to sack Burns because he was a revolutionary thinker, but because of some other part of his work—perhaps because he had been making a mistake in sizing up the beer for the Excise.
This is a nasty, deplorable little incident in our political life. It is an attempt to crush out independent thought. It is an attempt to suppress the critic and not to answer him. We boast that we have a free Press. What sort of free Press is this? My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser)has proved his case. This case should go to the consideration of an independent judicial person. and, were this done, I should have no fear of the consequences. The result might be that we might have a different Minister.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Walter Elliot: Is there not a possible danger of a descent to a level to which it is not right that Parliament should descend? The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)finished his speech by indicating clearly what is the object of all this: it is to get rid of the Joint Under-Secretary of State and have a different Minister. It is a purely political objective, to which some of the high falutin' talk we have had has no relation whatever. It is, in fact, a smear. The case has been given away by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser)and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who moved and seconded the Motion, drew a decent veil over it. But the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has torn that away.
The suggestion is made that an inquiry should be held. An inquiry into what? An inquiry into the conduct of the directors of the Dumfries and Galloway Standard?

Dr. J. Dickson Mahon: No.

Mr. Elliot: Those are the persons whose actions are being complained of. No one suggests for a moment that my hon. Friend had any power to appoint

or dismiss any office bearer of the paper. The persons whose actions are being complained of in this respect are the directors of the paper, and it seems to be actually suggested that this House should solemnly constitute itself an appropriate court of inquiry into the conduct of the directors of a newspaper. I think that we are going to very odd lengths when a course like that is brought forward on the Floor of the House of Commons.
I would claim, further, that the proposed inquiry is mixed up between two questions: the one of somebody giving advice, and the other of someone bringing pressure. As to advice, we spend our lives receiving and giving advice. Which of us does not get a post full of advice every morning, and spend the rest of his day giving advice to everyone from Ministers to fellow Members? The question is whether anybody takes our advice. Pressure is a different matter. That advice should be given is part of our profession; that it should be taken is the responsibility of those who take it. It is this responsibility which it is actually proposed should be inquired into by the House of Commons.
When it is suggested that there is something improper about suggesting, even to the directors of a newspaper, that an editor should be sacked, I look along the Front Bench opposite; and ask myself, who could lay his hand on his heart and say that during the time of Munich he never suggested to anybody concerned with the conduct of The Times newspaper that Geoffrey Dawson was a public menace and ought to be sacked? Time and again that advice was proffered.
Coming closer to home, everyone heard the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland speak with great empressement about the sin of altering people's appointments because of their political opinion. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will remember better than anyone that when a well-respected Member of this House, Robert Bernays, also a Press correspondent, changed his political allegiance to National Liberal instead of Liberal, the then editor of the News Chronicle, Mr. A. J. Cummings, sacked him the very next week. The hon. Member knows very well that Lady Violet Bonham Carter wrote a letter to The Tunes protesting against it. Lady Violet never suggested, however, that a court


of inquiry should be set up into the conduct of the directors of the News Chronicle, or into the conduct of Mr. A. J. Cummings, the editor of that newspaper. She made a protest, as she was entitled to do.

Mr. Grimond: It is surely not suggested that Robert Bernays was sacked at the request of a Minister?

Mr. Elliot: No Minister requested the sacking of the editor of the Dumfries and Galloway Standard. Owing to the weakness of the Opposition Motion, the Joint Under-Secretary has no case to answer here at all. No Minister had the power either to appoint or dismiss the editor of the newspaper. If any Minister had any such responsibility, his conduct could be called into question. The utmost acccusation made here is the accusation of advice. Have not right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on Opposition benches often said that various editors of newspapers were public menaces and ought to be got rid of? If not, they are the most complacent set of nincompoops that have ever sat in Parliament. But are they therefore to be held responsible if, at some later date, an editor loses his job?
I would call attention to the letter which was sent. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State attended this meeting in reply to a letter, written to him by the editor of the newspaper, in terms which were of a fairly personal nature and which meant, "Attend or else". I know what conclusion I would draw from a letter which began:
Following upon the decision by the Liberal Federation to contest the seat at the next General Election …
That is pressure, if you like. Here is direct pressure upon a Minister by somebody who threatens to try to get rid of him, to sack him. The letter says, in effect, "We are going to put you on the mat and ask what you have to say about all this". The obvious inference was that the writer of the letter wished my hon. Friend to join in with the editor's views, and to change his own particular views. It was, in effect asking him to change his political allegiance. The letter said:
Could you come to my room"—
to my room—
at eleven-thirty on Saturday morning, when they will be there to see you? If not, could

you let me know before ten on Friday night? If I do not hear, I will assume you will be present …
Regards.—Yours sincerely.
Those are the terms which somebody would refuse at his peril. I can imagine the indignation with which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would have spoken if, after a letter couched in those terms, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State had refused to go to the meeting. It would have been said that he had refused to see an honest working man, refused to go to his room. That is the kind of smear campaign that would then have been launched. Even on the statements that have been made so far, there is no case for my hon. Friend to answer.

ROYAL ASSENT

5.15 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation Act, 1957.
2. Whitstable Harbour Act, 1957.
3. Liverpool Corporation Act, 1957.

HON. MEMBER FOR DUMFRIES

Question again proposed.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: After one of our Parliamentary interludes which has had, I hope, the effect of cooling the atmosphere, and, it may be, the passions of the House, I trust that it will not be necessary for the hon. Member for Hamilton and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to proceed with the Motion which they have brought before the House. It is a Motion which is not really a matter for inquiry by the House. It is a discussion about a trade dispute outside the House. Furthermore, the matter has, I understand, been before the appropriate trade body. The Press Council was asked to deal with the matter, but refused, and the National Union of Journalists has been asked, also without success, to take it up.
It really becomes ridiculous that the House should be asked to inquire into a


matter on which the responsible professional bodies themselves refuse to intervene. As to condemning the action of the Minister himself, no thinner case, I suggest, has ever been brought before the House of Commons. Not even the hon. Member for Hamilton has suggested anything against the Minister except that when asked to a meeting to give advice there he went, and gave advice. I am perfectly certain that the hon. Member for Hamilton has been asked to many meetings and has given his advice at them, and, indeed, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also, and felt in no way blameworthy for that.
It is quite ridiculous to suggest that the stating of an opinion by a Member of Parliament is a subject into which Parliament should inquire and on which it should pronounce, whether or not it leads to subsequent action by those to whom the advice is given. To do so would be to bring the House continually into disputes with which it is not concerned.
I trust very much that it will not be necessary for the two hon. Members opposite to pursue the matter. The only practical suggestion which they have made is one which I think that even they regard as inadequate. No one has elaborated it in any way. If an inquiry should be held, by whom it should be held, and under what conditions? Nothing definite is said. There is no suggestion as to whether the person or persons appointed to inquire should have power to call for papers, to summon witnesses, to compel evidence on oath. Everybody knows the procedure under which inquiries of this House are held; a Select Committee, with the far-reaching powers given under the procedure of this House. One suggestion was that it should be inquired into by two Privy Councillors—how, not stated. These are not serious proposals to put before the House in support of such a grave matter as a Motion of censure on one of our colleagues.
When the hon. Member for Hamilton says that no person can be vindicated merely by a statement of opinion, it is also pertinent to remark that no one's name can be blackened merely by a statement of opinion. Evidence a great deal more substantial than this will have to be brought before the House—an inquiry under very much more concrete conditions than have been put forward—

if the House is seriously to entertain the proposition that has been put before it, and to which, I contend, the House should now refuse its consent.

5.31 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: There are one or two points in this debate that are very perturbing, and I think that when he made his first statement, the Prime Minister underestimated the seriousness of this business. I am very disappointed in the attitude of hon. Members opposite, who have taken a very light view indeed. I had always thought that both sides of the House put the freedom of the Press at a very high level. Even when the Press, as it often does, hurts and grieves us, we learn to put up with it.
Particularly do I remember that when we were on that side of the House and were pleading for the Royal Commission on the Press, hon. Members now opposite constantly assailed and derided us and affirmed their view that the Press was sacrosanct from the interference of any politician.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot)is summed up in the national poet's words:
Their juggling hocus pocus arts
To cheat the crowd.
To juggle with fact, and to advance hocus pocus irrelevant arguments, deceives no one but himself.
In his first intervention in the matter, the Prime Minister made an astonishing statement, although it is true that he was taken to task by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)who had spoken previously. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement that this was a small, obscure newspaper. It reminded one of the servant's baby. Apparently the principle had to be altered in this case because the paper did not enjoy a very large circulation.
The Prime Minister's other statement was that the Under-Secretary of State had not used his position as a Minister. That has been dealt with, but the irrelevant arguments that have been floating around have been in connection with the News Chronicle and the Daily Herald. I notice that the editor of one newspaper evidently thought that he had said the last that needed to be said about it when he


observed that a former editor of the Daily Herald had stated that he could not write an article without looking over his shoulder to see if someone of the Trades Union Congress was not asking him to keep in line with party resolutions. We have had the same kind of argument trotted out in reference to the News Chronicle. Surely it stands out that the Daily Herald was at that time, and up to this week, committed to a policy, and a deviation from that policy was to be called in question. The same could be said of the News Chronicle—

Mr. Ellis Smith: The British Gazette.

Mrs. Mann: The Dumfries and Galloway Standard has been committed to Liberal Radical policies. It has received letters from the former Leader of the Liberal Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I refer to the person who resigned from that party last year—and from the present Leader, congratulating it on pursuing that Liberal policy. Therefore, the intervention of the Joint Under-Secretary was entirely different from that in the Daily Herald and the News Chronicle cases, when there was a definite breaking away from an agreed policy. In this instance, the Under-Secretary intervened with the intention of creating a break away from a well-established policy.
It has been said that the editor was not dismissed on account of politics at all, but I do not think that it has been pointed out that he was dismissed at a period when the advertising revenue was at its peak and had been rising steadily, and when the circulation of the paper had also been increasing. It is, therefore, very difficult indeed for anyone to explain why he was sacked except for the reasons that are so obvious to everybody in this House.
I am very disappointed indeed in hon. Members opposite. I thought that some of them cherished democracy, and that they had the courage to submit to opinions even when they were hurled against them, and even when they were unjust. I had to do so for very many years, and I willingly put up with it. That is why I resent, and for the other reasons which I have given, that any hon. Member, particularly a Minister, should call so repeatedly and interfere. If the hon.

Gentleman had been an ordinary Member he could have written a letter to the same paper, but I resent that he should have interfered in this way, and that his interference should have resulted in the humble editor of even a small newspaper having to relinquish his post.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Mr. Storey.

Mr. S. Storey: Mr. S. Storey (Stretford) rose——

Mr. John Paton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that hon. Members, with perfect right, wish to continue this debate, would it be possible for the Leader of the House to consider abandoning the proposal to finish the debate about old-age pensions by eight o'clock and allowing it to continue until ten o'clock?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. Mr. Storey.

Mr. Storey: I shall not keep the House more than a minute. I should not have intervened in the debate, on account of my connections with newspapers, if it had not been for a statement made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser)in the course of his speech. The hon. Member said that the editor had the support of the Newspaper Society and of the Guild of Editors in his claim for damages for wrongful dismissal against his former owners.
As an ex-president of the Newspaper Society, I was astounded by that statement, and I have since been in touch with the director of the Society, who tells me that it is true that the editor approached the Society, but that he was told that it was the duty of the Society to advise newspaper owners and not their staffs. He was also told that the Guild of Editors was, by its rules, debarred from discussing any question between owners and their staff. I say no more. I leave it at that.

5.42 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): It is, of course, a serious matter for a Motion of this kind to be put down, and it was for that reason, although I regret the time taken from other discussions, that we considered that it would be quite wrong for the Motion to remain on the Order Paper and not to be disposed of before the Recess.
It is rare, fortunately, that charges are made against the conduct of an individual Member, and, therefore, when they are made, it is all the more necessary that they should be dealt with fairly and justly and, if possible, without prejudice. I am bound to say in this connection that since this affair began last Wednesday I have found great difficulty in discovering precisely what the accusation is which is made against my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). The terms of the Motion help us very little, and the supplementary questions that have been asked during the last two days have not helped us at all.
I had rather hoped that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), when he came to move his Motion, would be a little more specific. I had hoped that hon. Members opposite would bring some evidence to support the charges they were making, but I am bound to say that I have been quite disappointed in that. The hon. Member for Hamilton merely said what he had previously said, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who seconded the Motion—I am bound to say that I found his speech very surprising—practically said that it would have been all right for my hon. Friend to do what he did if he had done it a little more circumspectly, which seems a very strange moral standard for the great Liberal Party—a new moral standard.
Therefore, all that emerged from the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton was the new proposal that I should set up a committee or an independent tribunal of some kind to discover the facts of the situation. I am bound to say I think this is a very strange way to ask the House or the Government to proceed. First of all, Questions are put upon the Order Paper, then a Motion of Censure—what amounts to a Motion of Censure—is placed upon the Order Paper, and then it is proposed to have an inquiry to see whether there is anything in it which could justify a Motion.
This sounded all very nice. The hon. Member for Hamilton did it all very cleverly. It was very much like an attempt to reach a compromise, but it was really a compromise by malice out of innuendo, and so far as I am concerned that is not a runner. I am certainly not

prepared to institute any inquiry designed to discover whether what my hon. Friend has told me is true, and I cannot believe that anyone who has any respect for the confidence which exists between colleagues and has in the past been maintained by my predecessors, would expect me to support such a course.
Allegations of one sort or another have been made, but there is really very little dispute about the facts. In November last year, my hon. Friend received an invitation from the newspaper to discuss the political situation in his constituency, and six months later the editor of the newspaper was replaced. My hon. Friend did not ask for this meeting, nor did he ask any of the directors to call the meeting. What form did the invitation take? The letter has been read out, and I will not weary the House by reading it again. Hon. Members must decide whether it was cordial or peremptory according to their own judgment.
The letter was addressed, I would ask the House to note, to my hon. Friend at his party offices in Dumfries. What did it all amount to? Here we have a newspaper, quite contrary to what the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann)has just said, which has for four General Elections, including the 1945 General Election when there was another Liberal candidate—I do not distinguish between my hon. Friend and what might be called an orthodox Liberal candidate—supported my hon. Friend. Therefore, the tradition of the paper, so far as it had a political tradition in this matter, was in four General Elections, including a General Election when there was a three-cornered fight, to support my hon. Friend.
The directors learn that there is now to be a Liberal candidate who will intervene at the next Election. They have to decide what policy they are to follow and which candidate they will support, the National Liberal or the Liberal, and they ask my hon. Friend to come and see them and give them some account of his views on politics, both internal and external problems, so that they can make up their minds.
My hon. Friend accepted this invitation. Is the burden of the accusation against him that he accepted the invitation? I do not think a single hon. Member in


the House who, if he had received a similar invitation from a constituency newspaper or a local newspaper largely circulating in his constituency, would not have accepted it. Ought my hon. Friend to have replied in terms like these, "Oh, no; I could not accept such an invitation. I could not possibly discuss the political situation, either in the constituency or in the country, with you, for that would amount to a gross interference on my part with the liberty of the Press"? I really cannot believe, therefore, that it is my hon. Friend's accepting the invitation and discussing his views, and, of course, urging the directors to continue the policy they have followed for the last four General Elections, about which hon. Gentlemen opposite are complaining. There is nothing wrong in that.
Let us take it to the next stage. Much has been made of the point that at a certain stage of the meeting the editor was not present. Certainly this was not at the request or instance of my hon. Friend, nor did he know that this was going to be done during the meeting. It is not for me—we are now discussing my hon. Friend's conduct and not that of anybody else—to question whether the directors were right or wrong in doing that.
My hon. Friend assures me that at this meeting there was no discussion of the position of the editor. There was discussion only of the policy of the paper. My hon. Friend is, of course, interested in the policy of the paper, whether it would support him or not, and it is surely quite proper that this matter should have been discussed by the directors. After this discussion, the editor, I understand, was recalled and was told the decision of the directors.
The next point that I have to deal with is the appointment of the new editor, for that point has been made and I should like to answer it. It has been said that my hon. Friend assisted the directors of the newspaper to secure a new editor. He certainly did not choose a new editor, but since the point has been raised I think it should be dealt with. The directors were considering whether or not it would be necessary to make a change. My hon. Friend was certainly asked at a certain point—and no doubt other people

were asked—whether he could suggest any possible names, and he certainly did make suggestions to help the directors. But the choice lay with them, and it was entirely a matter for them to choose whom they should appoint. My hon. Friend assures me that after doing this he did not know what would happen, and four months later when the change was made he had not known previously that it was going to take place. He tells me that, and I accept his statement.
There is, I think, a certain amount of misconception, and perhaps the most interesting part of the debate on the wider field was about what one might call the rights of an editor and the liberty of the Press, which was referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I think that this is a matter which varies according to the character of the arrangements made in each newspaper. The amount of latitude which is given to an editor varies a great deal. At one extreme, there are newspapers where, by tradition and sometimes even by contract or even by the articles of association, it has been understood that the editor is to have a very wide measure of political control. There are the other extremes where editors are bound to follow certain policies, this being inherent in the appointment.
I do not want to have to keep mentioning the Daily Herald, but when the Labour Party was in office, the articles of association of that newspaper provided that the political policy of the paper should be laid down from time to time by the conferences of the Labour Party. I do not know quite how that was actually achieved. I hope that Ministers were never involved at all, because, of course, if they had been, or even if they had been asked to give an opinion, it would, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, have been highly improper.
Broadly speaking, these extremes are those where, by tradition or arrangement, the powers of the editor are almost complete, and those where they are tied up in the very character of the appointment. Broadly speaking, that may be said to be the fact. The majority of newspapers have consistently followed the policies of their proprietors. The Daily News, the


great Liberal paper of the past, followed the policies laid down by the Cadbury and Rowntree families. The Daily Chronicle, after it was purchased by Mr. Lloyd George, followed the policy which he wished it to follow, and when they were amalgamated under the Cadbury-Rowntree control, the paper followed, broadly, the policies of its new proprietors. The Northcliffe Press and Harmsworth Press have followed for many years the policies laid down by their successive proprietors, and I would hesitate to suggest that Lord Beaver-brook's papers followed any views except his own.
In this situation, there is only one man who has ever been able to obtain what I suppose economists would call the perfect position of equilibrium—Mr. Scott, who, when he edited the Manchester Guardian, was both proprietor and editor, and that, of course, makes it very much easier, do not think that an editor, unless he has some special clause or agreement, has a right to conduct the paper contrary to the wishes of the proprietors. That has no foundation in fact.
I have dealt with this point at some length because it is really the one which some hon. Gentlemen opposite have been trying to maintain. If not, then what is the point of their argument? The fact is that, in most cases, an editor is answerable to his directors or proprietors, and as long as he keeps their confidence he is secure.
I return to this accusation. Six months, then, after the meeting to which I have referred, the editor is replaced by the directors. I have had an assurance from my hon. Friend that he was in no way responsible for this decision. Indeed, the directors published a statement. I am not concerned with the directors or the proprietors; they must deal with their own affairs. There may have been other reasons which made them discontented, and if that is so the editor has his remedies which he can take up. Broadly speaking, the position is that the newspaper invited the Member for the constituency in which it largely circulates to discuss the political position there with them—the editor and the directors. So far, there can be no question of any possible impropriety on the part of my hon. Friend. "But," say hon. Gentlemen opposite, "he did all these things

as a Minister, and that makes all the difference." I do not think that that really makes much sense.

Mr. W. R. Williams: The Prime Minister has said, possibly quite rightly, that they asked the hon. Gentleman because he was the Member. There is another hon. Member, the Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie), whose constituency is also in the circulation area of the paper. Was he asked to go to the meeting, too?

The Prime Minister: I understand that this paper circulates largely in the constituency of my hon. Friend, and, secondly, that the problem that arose, or the problem to which they called attention, was that having supported him in four General Elections, in one of which there was another Liberal candidate, there was now to be a new situation in which there were two rival Liberal candidates, and they wished to discuss the matter with him.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the Prime Minister make it clear that the hon. Member for Galloway was not called to the meeting?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; they were interested in the position arising from the intervention of a Liberal candidate, which had just been announced. It put them in the position that they had to make a decision, as they did in 1945, which candidate to support.

Mr. William Ross: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether or not the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie)was called to the meeting in 1945, when he was an Independent Conservative and his party put up an official Conservative against him?

Mr. John Mackie: I am very much obliged to the Prime Minister for allowing me to intervene. I can at once answer both points. I was not asked to the meeting. I have had no consultations in the recent development—none whatever. With regard to 1945, the paper in question supported me when certain Members of my own party were behaving very badly.

The Prime Minister: I think that is a great tribute to what I may call the liberalism, in the true sense of the word, of the directors of the paper.
What does all this mean—this reference to my hon. Friend acting as a Minister? Are hon. Members trying to say that he has been trying, and that the Government have been trying, to interfere with the liberty of the Press? Interference with the liberty of the Press by the Government is very difficult; indeed, it is virtually impossible, because in order to interfere there must be some sanction. In order to make a threat, there must be some power to enforce it, and Ministers have not that power. There may be occasions when they have the power, as in war, but in ordinary times they have no such power. There is no question in anyone's mind that my hon. Friend, much as I respect him and important as his office is, was called to this interview not on behalf of the Government as a whole, but because he was the Member for the constituency, and we all know it.
I therefore do not think that there is really any power in the attack about the freedom of the Press. I do not think my hon. Friend has acted in any way contrary to what he should have done. Curiously enough—and I have noticed that as a whole in this country the Press is quite sensitive to an attack on what is called the freedom of the Press

—the Press seemed to be wholly unmoved by this incident. I have not heard that one single article has been published about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Manchester Guardian."] For all this, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has twice demanded the resignation of my hon. Friend.

I do not think that after this debate the accusations that have been made against my hon. Friend, which have not been supported by any argument, will be seen to have any foundation at all. My view is that my hon. Friend's honour is completely vindicated. I should hope that he would stay with us in his Ministerial position, and I should count myself indeed worthy of censure if I were to yield to any pressure to ask him to resign.

Mr. H. Hynd: Before the Prime Minister sits down, will he answer a question? Everyone will appreciate the way in which he has attempted to defend a colleague, but can he give an assurance that in private his Friend's knuckles will be rapped and that this will not happen again?

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 293.

Division No. 178.]
AYES
[6.0 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Collins, V. J. (Shorditch &amp; Finsbury)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Albu, A. H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grey, C. F.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Anderson, Frank
Cronin, J. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Awbery, S. S.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Grimond, J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hale, Leslie


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Benson, G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hamilton, W. W.


Beswick, Frank
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hannan, W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Delargy, H. J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Dodds, N. N.
Hayman, F. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Donnelly, D. L.
Healey, Denis


Blyton, W. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Boardman, H.
Dye, S.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Edelman, M.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Holman, P.


Boyd, T. C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holmes, Horace


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Holt, A. F.


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hoy, J. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fernyhough, E.
Hubbard, T. F.


Burke, W. A.
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Finch, H. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Eric
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Forman, J. C.
Hunter, A. E.


Carmichael, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Champion, A. J.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Ga[...]then)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Chapman, W. D.
Gibson, C. W.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gooch, E. G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Clunie, J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, Anthony
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)




Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Oswald, T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Owen, W. J.
Sparks, J. A.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Padley, W. E.
Steele, T.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Paget, R. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Stonehouse, John


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Kenyon, C.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


King, Dr. H. M.
Parkin, B. T.
Swingler, S. T.


Lawson, G. M.
Paton, John.
Sylvester, G. O.


Ledger, R. J.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Peart, T, F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pentland, N.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Popplewell, E.
Thornton, E.


Lewis, Arthur
Prentice, R. E.
Timmons, J.


Logan, D. G.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Tomney, F.


Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Usborne, H. C.


MacDermot, Niall
Probert, A. R.
Viant, S. P.


McInnes, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Watkins, T. E.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Pryde, D. J.
Weitzman, D.


McLeavy, Frank
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Randall, H. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mahon, Simon
Rankin, John
West, D. G.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Redhead, E. C.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Reid, William
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rhodes, H.
Wigg, George


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mayhew, C. P.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, Frederick


Mellish, R. J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Messer, Sir F
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mitchison, G, R.
Royle, C.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Monslow, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Moody, A. S.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Winterbottom, Richard


Mort, D. L.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Moss, R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Woof, R. E.


Moyle, A.
Skeffington, A. M.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Zilliacus, K.


Oram, A. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)



Orbach, M.
Sorensen, R. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Deer




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Errington, Sir Eric


Aitken, W. T.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Erroll, F. J.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Alport, C. J. M.
Campbell, Sir David
Fisher, Nigel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Carr, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cary, Sir Robert
Foster, John


Armstrong, C. W.
Channon, Sir Henry
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Ashton, H.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Freeth, Denzil


Atkins, H. E.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cole, Norman
Gammans, Lady


Balniel, Lord
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Gamer-Evans, E. H.


Barber, Anthony
Cooke, Robert
Gibson-Watt, D.


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper, A. E.
Glover, D.


Barter, John
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Glyn, Col. R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Godber, J. B.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Goodhart, Philip


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)
Gough, C. F. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Cunningham, Knox
Gower, H. R.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Currie, G. B. H.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bidgood, J. C.
Dance, J. C. G.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Green, A.


Bishop, F. P.
Deedes, W. F.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Black, C. W.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Body, R. F.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Gurden, Harold


Boyle, Sir Edward
Drayson, G. B.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Braine, B. R.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Duthie, W. S.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, W.)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bryan, P.
Elliott, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesfd)







Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Hay, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
McAdden, S. J.
Robinson, sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. sir Lionel
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Robson Brown, Sir William


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mackeson, Brig, sir Harry
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
McKibbin, A. J.
Roper, Sir Harold


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Russell, R. S.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Sharples, R. C.


Hobson, john(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Shepherd, William


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hope, Lord John
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hornby, R. P.
Maddan, Martin
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maltland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Soames, Christopher


Horobin, Sir Ian
Maltland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Speir, R. M.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Howard, John (Test)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Marshall, Douglas
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Mathew, R
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Storey, S.


Kurd, A. R.
Mawby, R. L.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hyde, Montgomery
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Teeling, W.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Moore, Sir Thomas
Temple, John M.


Iremonger, T. L.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Neave, Airey
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nicholls, Harmar
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Turner, H. F. L.


Joseph, Sir Keith
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kaberry, D.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Kershaw, J. A.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Kimball, M.
Page, R. G.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Kirk, P. M.
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lagden, G. W.
Partridge, E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Lambert, Hon. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wall, Major Patrick


Lambton, Viscount
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Leather, E. H. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Leavey, J. A.
Pitman, I. J.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pott, H. P.
Webbe, Sir H.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Profumo, J. D.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wood, Hon. R.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ramsden, J. E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rawlinson, Peter



Longden, Gilbert
Redmayne, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Renton, D. L. M.
Mr. Heath and Mr. Oakshott.

RETIREMENT PENSIONS

6.10 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move,
That, in view of impending increases in rents and the continuous rise in the cost of the necessities of life, this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce forthwith appropriate measures to provide an immediate increase in benefits for retirement pensioners and all persons receiving National Assistance.
I moved a Motion similar to this five months ago, on 25th February, to which the Government moved an Amendment which was accepted by the House, the House accordingly resolving that it would
support Her Majesty's Government in all measures they could take to protect the real value of these benefits.
Since then, they have certainly taken measures to increase some people's incomes. The Surtax payers' incomes have been increased. The incomes of landlords are shortly to be increased. But the Government have not fulfilled the terms of the Resolution which the House carried then and they have not maintained the value of insurance benefits.
The real value of insurance benefits which they promised then to protect has, in fact, been reduced. In February last, when we debated this question, the Index of Retail Prices, which I must take for the purpose of measurement—anyway, it is the Government's own figure—stood at 4 points above the level of January, 1956. Now, it is 6 points above that level, a rise of 2 points in five months. It is 10 points above the average for 1955, the year in which the last increase in pensions was made. Thus, the Government are failing by 2s. in the £ to maintain the value which Lord Ingleby, then Mr. Peake, thought appropriate to recommend to the House at the end of 1954. That is the measure of their failure, and 2s. in a £ means a very great deal when a person has only £2 a week to spend. Taking the figures from the Government's own publications, that is the measure of their achievement in protecting the real value of pensions.
It is no use any Minister or supporter of the Government arguing, if he has a mind to this time, that the rises in the index are not due to increases in the price of goods that pensioners buy. That has been argued sometimes in the past.

but, this time, it will not do. The Ministry of Labour Gazette, announcing the latest upward move in the Index of Retail Prices in June said:
It is due mainly to increases in the average prices of potatoes, bacon, eggs and tomatoes.
The last increase is seen to be due mainly to a rise in the price of food, and not luxury foods either, but essential foods.
That is not by any means all. The case we put today is not merely that the Government have failed to fulfil the promise which they made to the House five months ago, but that there is very much worse to come. Again, this cannot be denied. We all know of increases in price which are bound to come about very soon, certainly before Christmas. We know of the increase in postal charges, for that proposal has been before us; it is the Government's own action, announced by the Government. Even old-age pensioners and people on National Assistance must occasionally write a letter.
We know that the price of coal has gone up. We know that the price of gas and electricity has gone up. We know that the effect of these increases in fuel costs will not be felt either in the index or in the daily budgets of the old-age pensioners and poor people living on National Assistance for a couple of months yet. They must look forward with grave anxiety and trepidation to what is to happen next winter, with these increases in price already approved and about to take place. How are they to manage? They have had hard enough times, as we all know, in recent winters to keep themselves in decent comfort. How are they to do it next winter, when these increased prices come along?
The price of steel has just gone up. Old-age pensioners do not, I suppose, consume very much steel in the form of such things as pots and pans and razor blades, but everybody knows that the increased price of basic commodities such as steel will be passed on through the economy. If we did not know it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in the debate we had on the economic situation a short time ago. He said that all these price increases would pass through the economy and would result in further increases in the ultimate price of consumer goods.
An increase in freight charges was forecast, I noticed, in a recent issue of the


Financial Times. These again, passed on by the railways to their customers, will be passed on by them into an eventual rise in consumer goods. Bus fares will probably go up. Indeed, so remarkable is this series of increases now in the price of basic commodities which must inevitably be passed on into the cost of final products that the Financial Times, in its issue of 15th July, headed its article on the subject, "Industry's Price Thaw".
I have not time to expound the whole article, but the theme of it was that these increases, which I have already mentioned, will be passed on, and that we may expect further increases in all kinds of other industrial products. With those increases, it is impossible to avoid an ultimate rise in the price of consumer goods. The inflationary spiral has undoubtedly taken an upward turn of very large dimensions.

Captain Richard Pilkington: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the inflationary spiral has taken a further turn upwards. Would he agree that the man chiefly responsible for the future of that increasing inflationary spiral is Mr. Cousins?

Mr. Norman Dodds: It is the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Government.

Mr. Marquand: I am not seeking to lay the blame for the increase in the inflationary spiral on anybody this afternoon. What I wish to do is to draw attention to the plight of 2½ million and more people, who have had no responsibility for it whatsoever, upon whom the main burden will unquestionably fall.
The worst of all the increases which are to come, in its effect upon old people and those living on National Assistance and other insurance benefits, will, of course, be the rise in rents. The Government, though they had decided that the rise in rents must take place, could, at least, apart altogether from any increase in pensions for which we are asking today, have taken more effective measures to protect the old-age pensioner and insurance beneficiary from the effects of increased rents. They might, at least, have taken steps to inform these people of their position. The Minister of Housing and Local Government might have sent out Form G to every one of them.
The Minister has the addresses of all old-age pensioners. He, or the Assistance Board, has the names and addresses of all on Assistance readily to hand. Why did he not write a letter to them all saying, "An increase in rents is coming. These are the measures provided for your protection. If your house is in a bad state of repair, you can use this form"—and so on. Why not tell them? Instead, the Government have said that people can go to a shop, if they can find one with a form, and buy a copy for 6d.
A woman came to me not long ago during my last visit to my constituency. She was typical of the many whom we see in our "surgeries", an elderly lady, decent, respectable, well-mannered, and in no way to be criticised for the plight in which she found herself. She was living on National Assistance on the scale rate of £2 a week. She brought me a notice from her landlord saying that her rent was going up by 7s. 6d. "What am I going to do?" she asked. "How can I possibly pay this sum out of £2? I can scarcely live on it as it is."

Mr. John Eden: If the lady was receiving National Assistance, would not her rent have been paid by the National Assistance Board?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Subsidising the landlords.

Mr. Marquand: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden)might have allowed me a sentence or two to finish my story.
I was glad to be able to say to the lady, "Of course, you will not have to pay it. The Assistance Board will pay it." I told her to go to the Assistance Board. I asked her in what kind of house she was living. I could almost have guessed the answer beforehand. She was living, of course, in a house where the landlord had never bothered to do repairs for years on end. The water was dripping in on her bed. I was able to give her the appropriate form to fill up and she will be helped to fill it up, as she is entitled to do under the Act.
Why do the Government not arrange to have these things made known?

Mr. William Shepherd: Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle) rose—

Mr. Marquand: I will not give way again. I have given way twice in a very few minutes.
What measures have been taken to tell the retirement pensioner and persons already on National Assistance that the Assistance Board will pay their rent increases? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. It may be that he made a broadcast about it—I do not know. Perhaps I am doing him an injustice. If so, no doubt he will defend himself when the time comes. What effort has been made to let these people know?
In the correspondence which we receive—on this side of the House, at least—we have evidence that people just do not know their rights. They are being subjected to unnecessary anxiety and worry by a failure to let them know the protection that is provided in the Act.

Mr. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend give way? Assuming that the old-age pensioner does, in fact, get the whole of the 7s. 6d. from the National Assistance Board, does this not mean that the Board will be giving a direct subsidy to the landlords?

Mr. Marquand: Certainly.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way to me now that he has done so to his hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker: I would point out that we have only a short time for the debate on this important subject and that interruptions prolong speeches. The fewer we have of them, the more progress we shall make.

Mr. Marquand: It may well be that some hon. Members, feeling that they may not be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the time at our disposal, might like to make their speeches while I am making mine. I cannot help them any more than I have done.
In round figures, there are 2½ million people—one in 20 of the population—living to a greater or less degree on National Assistance. Amid all the apparent prosperity which we see around us—the motor cars, radio, and television sets. shops full of goods, people preparing to go on holiday, crowded trains, and all the rest—these 2½ million people are living in miserable little houses in the grimy, unpleasant hack streets of our towns and

in the little, unrepaired, patched-up cottages in the countryside. These are the forgotten people of Britain, on a standard which is quite indefensible in view of the standards of living at which the rest of the population is now able to live.
These 2½ million forgotten people are scattered all over this country of ours. If they could all be brought to one place, they would be double the population of the City of Birmingham. Then, perhaps, more notice would be taken of their plight. It is our duty this afternoon to think of them and to plead for them.
If I had time and if I thought it wise to do so, I could read dozens of letters which have been received by my hon. Friends and myself about the plight of these people. One could quote case after case which has arisen in what we call our "surgeries." I will read just this one letter, which has been passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall). This is a genuine letter if ever there was one:
Ex-railway brick labourer, 72 years old. I write these lines to ask the Labour Party to try the powers that be to allow us, the ex-workers, to spend our tobacco duty relief tokens on bread.
That is the position to which many old-age pensioners find themselves reduced. They wish that they could find some means of providing themselves with bread rather than with one of the luxuries of life.
How many more such people are there to be after the rent increases come into effect in October? I want to know. I hope we will get an answer from the Minister, not a debating answer, but a Ministerial answer, giving us the facts. What is the Government's estimate of the extra number of persons who will require and receive National Assistance after the rent increases come into effect, and how many of those will be retirement pensioners?
When Lord Ingleby introduced the Bill to increase pensions last time, there were 1 million retirement pensioners on National Assistance. He said that that number was so high that it was certainly time that the retirement pension itself should be increased so that the numbers having to resort to National Assistance could be reduced. One million was Lord Ingleby's limit. One million was the


point at which, he felt, action should be taken to increase the retirement pension
When we last debated this subject, the number was 927,000, in December, 1956. The latest figure, published in the green book of statistics, was 942,000 in March, 1957. What is the figure today? I hope the Minister knows. It will be published in the green book in the middle of August, so presumably it is available already. It has probably gone to the printers. It is part of the Minister's duty to watch these figures, so he must know. If he knows the answer, will he please tell us? Has it reached the 1 million mark yet? It cannot be very far off at this rate of increase.
That is the outline of the situation of our people today. The plea that they are making to us and that we are striving to voice today in the House of Commons is simply this: for God's sake do something this time to protect us before the worst happens. Far too often in the past, action has been taken when it became apparent that the cost of living was unbearably high and when it became apparent that another 100,000, 200,000 or 300,000 people had to resort to National Assistance.
As it can easily now be foreseen that the cost of living must go up, as it is known to us that the cost of rent must go up, why can we not take the action now? Why can we not foresee these inevitable results of all the things that we know have happened? Why not submit the necessary order and regulations forthwith, as we say in our Motion, so that the books can be printed? As we have frequently said, it takes many weeks, if not months, to get all the alterations made in the pensions and all the books printed and sent out to the post offices. It takes a long time before the increase, once voted by this House, goes into the homes of the people. Why not begin now? It is easy to foresee the increases. Nothing at all that we can do will stop those increases, and no one here can deny that.
We have today put down a Motion which seeks to concentrate attention on two groups of people—very large groups indeed, as I have indicated—upon whom the burden of these price and rent increases and these other difficult conditions falls particularly heavily. But, of course, it does not mean that we lack sympathy

in any way whatever for other views. If our Motion were carried, and there were, as soon as it was physically and legally possible to do it, an increase in retirement pensions, of course it would follow that there would be an increase in the other insurance benefits as well.
What we are particularly anxious about, since it is now inevitable that the insurance benefits cannot be increased until next Session, are two things. First, that the Government will tell us tonight that there is to be an increase in the pension sufficient to cover these increases in prices and to keep another 1 million or perhaps 2 million from going on to National Assistance—that that will be the first order of priority next Session, that it will be mentioned in the Gracious Speech and that it will he the first Bill mentioned to us when we come back in November.
The second thing we want is this. Since that will inevitably take time, since, inevitably, the increase in pensions would not be paid before, perhaps, January next year, in the interim all those people should be protected by an increase in the National Assistance payment. It can be done. The Assistance Board, I know, is independent. The Minister cannot direct the Board, but the House of Commons tonight can take a vote of which the Board will undoubtedly take notice. The whole country will take notice if the Motion which I have moved is carried tonght.
Action by the Assistance Board, will, I think, follow very rapidly. What action is needed? The Board decides upon a figure which it recommends for an improvement in the rates of assistance, and recommends it to the Minister. He brings it before the House and It goes through, when the House approves the Order laid before it. No amendment is possible. I hope we shall hear today that as soon as the Board produces its recommendations, the Order will be laid before us in the week in which we come back.
We have heard the business announced by the Lord Privy Seal for the week when we come back in October. There is plenty of room among that business for the placing on the Order Paper of a recommendation by the Assistance Board. If that is done in the first three days in the week in which we come back, I can


assure the House that the recommendation of the Board, even if it should disappoint us, will be put through this House in no time. The Government need not worry about the length of time taken. It will go through. We shall expedite it to the utmost of our power.
What we plead tonight is that that Order be laid and that the Assistance Board listen to the plea of the House of Commons and the people of the country. I ask the Board to think again of the 300,000 people with children, drawing National Assistance, with a maximum weekly sum of 18s. on which to keep a child. I have said before in the House that this is a totally inadequate sum. It was totally inadequate a year ago when we discussed it. It is even more inadequate now. Let the National Assistance Board think of these children of the unemployed, the sick and the widowed, and, in some cases, even of the retirement pensioners. Think of the others, the long-term unemployed, sick and widowed, and let them take from the House tonight the message that this House wants those rates to be increased—not as a long-term policy for shifting over from insurance to assistance, but as an interim measure after which the Minister can introduce immediately in the new Session his legislation for an increase in the basic rate of pension and in the basic rate of all the other insurance benefits.
It would be the utmost hypocrisy to refuse these people who, as I have said, did not cause the inflation. In no way can they be held responsible for that. Indeed, they are undoubtedly the chief victims of it. It would be hypocrisy to refuse that to them on the grounds that such a payment would increase inflation further.
I said in February, when I introduced the previous Motion, that
… it would be an outrage if, in the Budget which we are to hear next April, there were to be yet another hand-out to Income Tax and Surtax payers and nothing done for the poorest of the poor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1957; Vol. 565, c. 867.]
I said then that it would be an outrage, and the outrage has been committed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What will he do? There has been no increase in the Assistance rate and no increase in the pension rate. Instead, £65 million tax relief was given to the Surtax payers

and to the property owners, on top of £100 million relief to the same groups in the Budget of 1955—a total increase in the inflationary pressure of £165 million. That £165 million would go a very long way to giving a substantial and satisfactory improvement in the retirement pension and in the Assistance rates of those who are not entitled to a pension.
I hope that there will be no diversionary efforts to talk about welfare and health visitors and that kind of thing. When we hear about block grants instead of percentage grants for local authorities, we wonder whether the welfare services will be reduced. Let us leave them on one side. Let us take that as common ground between us. Do not let us talk about those things on which we are all agreed. There are certainly many hon. Members on the benches opposite who are sincerely in favour of improvements in those directions. Let us hear from hon. Members opposite what they think about the money on which these people have to live and whether they do not feel that it ought to be increased substantially.
Some play was made in our last debate with the question, "What is your figure? Why not produce a figure?" I do not want to ride off on what is the correct constitutional answer, that private Members cannot propose increases in expenditure, and that that is the duty of the Government. I want to say simply that we have given an idea since then of what our figure would be. We have said in our new proposals for superannuation that we think that £3 a week is the sort of figure to which the basic pension ought to be raised.

Mr. Raymond Gower: By 1960?

Mr. Marquand: Yes. We have put forward our plans for a new system of pensions and superannuation. Indeed, if we were returned tomorrow it would not be by 1960, of course. We have put forward a new plan under which we believe it would be possible to provide a basic pension for all new entrants into insurance of £3 plus a differential on top, and we have said that in plain and common justice we would, of course, immediately make that £3 available to the present


retirement pensioners. We cannot be accused any longer of having shrunk from mentioning a figure.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): As the right hon. Gentleman has come to this matter, perhaps he would allow me to ask him a question, since it may save a little time later. When he talks of the £3 basic does he, in the proposal he is now putting forward, propose the inclusion of an addition to a wife's pension drawn on her husband's insurance? As I understand, in the Labour Party's published documents there is no suggestion of any such increase.

Mr. Marquand: That is so. The published documents on our plan so far show no such provision. Our plan is under discussion at present, as was intended, with the trade unions and with the interested organisations. The right hon. Gentleman is quite perfectly correct in what he says about that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For a married couple, 85s.

Mr. Marquand: The Minister says 85 "bob" for a married couple.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Is that what the Minister proposes tonight?

Mr. Marquand: That was a very interesting interjection by the right hon. Gentleman. I am becoming much more hopeful than I was. The Amendment which the Government have tabled to the Motion says what we were told last time, "Trust in us and we will take the appropriate measures." As I have said already, appropriate measures have not been taken in five months. Evidently the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider an increase to the extent of raising the present level from 55s. to 85s. for a couple.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman must not allow my success in at last eliciting from him and his right hon. and hon. Friends a definite figure which they pointedly refused to give on the last occasion to induce him to read into it any more than success in obliging the Opposition to state a figure for the first time.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What, in heaven's name, is the Minister laughing at?

Mr. Marquand: What I have said is that we believe that it is possible to do this, to raise pensions to that level in a comprehensive system of superannuation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us tonight he has in mind a new comprehensive system of superannuation. That is why we gave him a lead. We thought he might, perhaps, follow our lead. Since he was so reluctant to give any figure we thought if we gave him a lead he might follow us. Let us hope that tonight he will follow.

Mr. Dodds: Why does the Minister laugh?

Miss Herbison: He should give us a figure, not grin and laugh.

Mr. Marquand: We hope that, though he will put forward his full proposals later, in the interim, here and now, to give protection to these people, he will say, "Since we know that in future there will be something satisfactory which will be recognised as fair and equitable, because we know that that will happen, because the Government have the power to do this and are the only people who can recommend increases in expenditure, we say here and now we shall, as soon as the House comes back after the Recess, introduce the necessary legislation to raise the payments up to—" a given figure. I hope that the right hon. Gentle-will say that. We are looking forward with great expectation, after that interjection of his, to what he will say.
Our plea particularly tonight is that the Government should act now for the interim. Long-term plans can be made. They will take a long time to work out, and will require discussions and the necessary legislation for a new, comprehensive system. They are bound to. Such an overhaul is bound to take a long time. All that we are asking tonight is that something should be done now to compensate for what has happened and to anticipate what we know will happen. What we say is that the Government should not say merely that in the future, sometime, possibly before 1950, something will happen. Do not let them say tonight that something will happen in the future and that, therefore, nothing can be


done at the moment. Let them say, rather, "Because we know that we are to do something substantial and satisfactory in the future we can and will do something now in the interval."
Let the right hon. Gentleman undertake to the House tonight that he will use his best efforts to ensure that there will be an increase in National Assistance rates and that he will, as soon as possible in the new Session, introduce legislation for increasing retirement pensions and other insurance benefits; first, to compensate for the rise in the cost of living which has taken place since pensions were last raised; secondly, to protect the pensioners and the recipients of assistance from the future increases which we know are bound to come, and so as to avoid forcing another million or more people on to National Assistance; and, thirdly, to provide for those pensioners some share in the increase of productivity which the workers of the country have provided.
Let them have some share in the increased productivity. Those proposals should include provision for the increases in the cost of living already incurred, provision for the future increases in the cost of living which are inevitable, and, finally, a further amount to give those people a share in the increased prosperity which all of us have provided by our efforts. That is what we are asking the Government to do tonight.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser)has an Amendment to our Motion, to leave out from "That" to the end and add:
having regard to the increase in the cost of living and of all amenities, and to the increase in standards of life enjoyed by many wage earners, salary earners, professional men, small business men and holders of equity shares, this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce as soon as practicable a major reform in the basic rate of war pensions and war widows' pensions and to introduce appropriate measures to provide increases in benefits for retirement pensioners and all persons receiving National Assistance".
We have complete sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says in his Amendment. The record of this party in the matter of war pensions is comparable to anybody's. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has been good enough on previous occasions to say flattering things about it. Of course we have a care for the welfare of war pensioners and war widows, as for

the old, the sick. We have spoken about them many times. Tonight, however, we have tried to concentrate especially on those groups whom we think are the worst hit, because we know that if anything is done for them something will also be done automatically for those other classes as well.

6.46 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Wood): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
noting that the rates of war pensions, retirement pensions and other National Insurance benefits have twice been increased since October. 1951, and that the rates of national assistance have been raised three times since that date, this House expresses its confidence that Her Majesty's Government and the National Assistance Board will take such further action as may from time to time be just and fair both to the recipients of these payments and to the community as a whole".
The Amendment, it will be noticed, draws attention not only to the Government's action in respect of retirement pensions and the increases in National Assistance since 1951, but also makes mention of other National Insurance benefits and of war pensions.
I understand that this is to be a reasonably short debate. My right hon. Friend is preparing himself to answer the questions which will be raised in it. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand)will forgive me if I leave to my right hon. Friend the task of answering his points as well, because I feel I may carry some hon. Members with me if I suggest that in a debate of this length two major speeches from the Treasury Bench would really be a great imposition, particularly at the beginning of August. Therefore, the reason why I have risen is more or less formally to move the Amendment so as to allow the questions of other National Insurance benefits and war pensions if necessary to be discussed.
However, as war pensions are put—as I would think, rightly—in the front of the Amendment, perhaps I may be forgiven if I say just a few words about them. Since 1951 the Government have increased by half the figure at which they then stood the basic rates both for disabled pensioners and for war widows.


We have been able to double the allowance for widows' children, and we have gone a good long way towards doubling the allowance for orphans, and the maximum rent allowance which can be paid to widows who qualify has been increased by one-third.
Despite these changes, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser)has often argued, and may, indeed, argue tonight, if he catches the eye of the Chair, that the ordinary disabled ex-Service man and war widow is relatively worse off than he or she was in the 'thirties. I have always felt that that argument is worthy of the most serious examination and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to give to the disabled and the war widows all the help that we possibly can.
I am quite certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that whatever may be the relative position of the disabled man who is not drawing allowances and of the widow, there is no doubt whatever that the really seriously disabled man who cannot work, or who cannot do the kind of job he was doing before his war injury, or who is completely helpless and cannot look after himself, is far better off today than he was between the wars. Since last February every pensioner over 65, with a disability of 40 per cent. or more, has received an extra weekly payment of between 5s. and 15s.
Improvements in war pensions, as in all parts of our social services—and it is useful to remind ourselves of this, for we often pay lip service to it—are mercifully not the work of only one political party. I am entirely in agreement with what the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East said about the work at the Ministry of Pensions. Labour Governments as well as Conservative Governments have contributed towards the improved position of the most seriously disabled. I am absolutely certain that the record of the present Government, when their work is completed, will abundantly justify the confidence which we hope and expect the House will continue to express in it.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I wish to depart from the usual

form of debate immediately following the two Front Bench speakers because I want to take the opportunity of paying my tribute to a former Member of the House who has passed away after serving faithfully and loyally for twenty-two years the Borough of Leigh. I refer to Joe Tinker, who was known to the older Members of the House. Unfortunately, he passed away on Tuesday at the age of 82. In his last letter to me, a few days ago, he expressed the profound hope that the Government would do something immediately to ease the burden on the old-age pensioners. At the age of 82, and after having left the House a number of years ago, his sympathies and desires were still with the old folk. We respect his memory and we revere the work that he did as a Member of Parliament in so many ways, and especially for the old folks.
I want to lodge my emphatic protest against the limited time accorded to this debate. My hon. Friends were fully expecting that on a matter of great importance such as the welfare of the old folk we should at least be given an opportunity of discussion for the normal course of a debate of approximately seven or eight hours. Instead, on a great human problem affecting the lives of nearly 5 million people, we are limited to the brief space of two hours. I hope that in future, in arranging these debates, the Government, and leaders of the Opposition will have greater regard for the welfare of old-age pensioners.
I occupy, not of my own seeking, a responsible position in connection with the old folk. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Hubbard), now sitting beside me, and my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (The Rev. Ll. Williams)occupy similar positions. Never previously, whilst occupying that position, have I received so many letters condemning the Government's attitude as I have received during the last few months. That indicates that there is a growing feeling not only among trade unionists and co-operators, but in the minds of all old people that the Government are not fulfilling the promise that they gave a few years ago.

Sir Keith Joseph: We have heard a very responsible speech from the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand)and I


would not have wished to intrude a party matter if the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown)had not contended that the present Government have attracted a great amount of correspondence on the subject of old-age pensions. If the hon. Member had held his office about six or seven years ago, at the time when the cost of food had risen 30 per cent. and when the Labour Party had not once increased pensions, I warrant that he would have received far more correspondence.

Mr. Brown: I have always looked upon the hon. Member as a well-behaved Member of the House. On the last occasion that we discussed this subject be took me to task. I replied to his interjection, as I reply to his interjection now, that I did not then occupy the position I hold today and therefore I cannot be held responsible for the correspondence that passed to my predecessor in that capacity. With all respect, the hon. Member had better behave himself, because I am a Lancastrian and he will get it straight from the shoulder if he interjects again.
Old-age pensioners and those living on the lower incomes have a very real complaint. It has been admitted not only by them, and they are the best judges, but by my hon. and right hon. Friends who have had the opportunity of reading letters sent to them by their constituents and constituents of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. Practically all those letters end by saying that the old-age pensioners and those who are in the lower-income groups have a genuine complaint. Nobody can deny it however much we try to escape it. None of us can say that the old-age pensioner can live on £2 a week.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)
 rose—

Mr. Brown: I know that the hon. Member is a well-behaved Member and I therefore ask him not to intervene, because of the time factor.
The first charge I have to make against the Government is one of procrastination. The second, which I will elaborate, is one of a high degree of deception, and the third one of a high degree of complacency. It is just over five months since a petition was presented to this House calling the attention of the

Government to the worsening condition of the old-age pensioners and those in the lower income groups. To be precise, that petition was presented to the House on 20th February. It was followed by a debate on 25th February, during which Members from both sides of the House called the attention of the Government to the poor economic and social condition of the old people.
Since that time those who have studied the Order Paper will have seen Question after Question from both sides of the House, the object of which was to bring about an improvement in the condition of these people by relieving the effects of the rising cost of living and the lowering of the spending value of the £. The cost-of-living figure today is higher than it has ever been in the history of this country. It stands at 106. The spending value of the £ has been going down and down, and only a week ago today it was reduced from 16s. 1d. to 15s. 11d. Every week the prices of food commodities are rising. The cost of coal, the cost of light, rents, all are rising, and the old-age pensioners suffer from each increase, while nothing tangible is done to relieve the increasing burdens they bear. So I charge the Government with continued procrastination, which has been proved up to the hilt. Time is limited so I will leave that point.
What about the charge of a high degree of deception? I do not like to apply that word, and I am not applying it, to any individual Member of this House, but that charge also can be easily proved, for the Government and their supporters promised that they would peg the cost of living. There is abundant evidence that they have not done so, and the old people are those who suffer most when prices increase.
I have always held that one of the great handicaps of the old people is that they have no trade union and are therefore at the mercy of every whim and fancy. No one can speak for them unless inside this Chamber we speak for them. I cannot possibly describe the hardships imposed upon them by the continual increases in food prices. I live amongst them in my little village, I meet them at their welfare centres, and every one of them is finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. They are still awaiting the fulfilment of the promise made by the present Government some time ago to


peg the cost of living, which they have not done. Seriously, and with all the emphasis I can command, I ask the Government if the elderly people are to wait in vain? Are they to wait until another winter dawns upon them? Are they to give up hope of securing any increase in their basic pension before this Christmas? If so, the Government had better tell them.
Now I will take a glance backwards to 1955. Every time the sun shines or the rain pours, or a gale blows, the old-age pensioners suffer from an increase in the cost of living. Let us look at some of the reasons given for such increases: Two years ago, in September, 1955, prices increased because of the hot spell. In March, 1956, prices increased because of the cold spell. In July, 1956, there was for once a glut of vegetables, but the economic law of supply and demand did not operate and prices did not come down. In June, 1957, two months ago, prices rose again. The sun shone again, so much so that lettuces sold in our markets at 2s. each.
Prices are still rising. Last month, in July, prices rose because rain and storms damaged crops. Now we have the Covent Garden dispute, and the Government and those responsible advance the argument that this is causing rising prices. All those increases have had to be borne by the old-age pensioners. Storms, sunshine, showers and disputes, they suffer from them all, and the Government do not seem to care about the position of the old people, despite all the warnings and pleadings from this side of the House.
My third charge is one of a high degree of deception, and that can be proved to the hilt. Let us examine briefly some of the statements made during the past six months by responsible Members of the Government and their party. For instance, shortly after the debate on 25th February, 1957, according to the Press reports, the Chairman of the Conservative Party said at Manchester that the Government were not unmindful of the economic conditions of the old-age pensioners, which were having their serious consideration.
That statement from a responsible Member of the Tory Party should have met with some response from the Government, but still nothing tangible was done.

A little later there was the memorable meeting at Chequers which was attended by Cabinet Ministers and strong Government supporters. The Press reported some aspects of that meeting. The Lord Privy Seal, who is considered by practically every right-thinking man to be a very humane person, said according to the Press:
In the sphere of social services, the Government's aim is to ensure that the welfare State works to comfort the afflicted, rather than to afflict the comfortable.
They consider that stable prices are an extremely important element in social security. So do we on this side of the House, and every responsible person will agree that they are important. We believe that stable prices are one of the assets of social security. As I have said before, they are an indispensable factor in the social services. If the Government fail—whether it is a Tory Government or a Labour Government—to achieve price stability, we shall fail completely. The evidence we have proves conclusively that prices are not stable, and that is what is causing the trouble. Price fluctuations are causing a great deal of disturbance in our economic fabric in many ways.
I want to be fair. I know that the Government are not 100 per cent. responsible for the rise in prices and for these fluctuations, but it is no use advancing the argument that stable prices are part of social security when in a country like ours prices are not stabilised to any great degree but are fluctuating up and down—and they are often up rather than down.
I hope I shall not be misunderstood. When it comes to dealing with some parts of our society we can find the money. That cannot be denied. We can find money for everything except those people who stand most in need. There was no difficulty in finding £50 million for redundant officers of the Services. We can find the money for our own increases. We can find it for the judiciary and high legal luminaries. I am not complaining. I am one of those who believe in the philosophy that if men and women render service to their country, whatever the capacity in which they labour, at the end of their time they are entitled to a pension commensurate with an adequate standard of life. If we give emoluments


and gratuities to other people, why cannot we do something for the old folk? Why cannot we set ourselves the task of meeting our obligations to the old people?
I have quoted one or two statements that have been made by responsible Ministers and responsible Government supporters. A fortnight ago the Prime Minister spoke on the occasion of the celebration of twenty-one years' service by a Cabinet Minister. This is what he said:
Let's be frank; most of our people have never had it so good. Is it too good to last? Amid all this prosperity one problem troubles us—rising prices.
If the responsible head of the Government gives expression to words like those, then the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance must face the consequences of rising prices.
Let us not deny that there has been a continual improvement in the standard of life for some of our people. Let us not wink our eye and say it is not so; it is so. However, there are five million people in this country whose standard of life has been reduced as a result of the increased cost of living, and we must focus our attention on those people.
The Prime Minister mentioned—I admired his wit—that he had been reading "Alice in Wonderland." He also said that he had been reading Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" and he mentioned some of the characters from the book, including Mr. Worldly Wiseman, Mr. Reliable, Mr. Anything and Mr. Two Tongues, and he said:
… we have our Faithfuls, too.
It is the old faithful people of this country that we must remember. We must remember the men and women who are now travelling towards the western shore of life, who have served their day and generation, who have made sacrifices, who have manifested their courage and skill, when working and who have put up with all sorts of hardships. Are they not entitled to some part of the national prosperity? Are we to continue to deny these men and women what they are richly entitled to? Is there any hon. Member who would deny the right to an adequate pension for old men or women who have served their day and generation, whatever the capacity they were called upon to accept?
I am one who has always believed, and I put forward the philosophy here, that it is the duty of all men and women, whatever job they may be called upon to do, whether it be the town clerk in the town hall, or the street sweeper, whether they are employed in the mill or the mine, wherever their lot may be cast, to do the best for the industry and the State in which they work and live. If they have done their best, it is then the duty of the State and industry to protect them from poverty, want and starvation.
We are not doing that. We are not living up to the name that we have as a Christian country. A great Prime Minister of this nation once said that a nation finds its soul only when it cares for its old, its aged and its infirm. I hope that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and others who have responsibilities towards our old folk will find their soul and ensure that the old-age pensioners and those in the lower income groups are given a fair deal.

7.16 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown)has a warm heart, but when he says that the Government promised to peg the cost of living I do not think he is accurate. I will leave the Minister to deal with that. I would merely say that I have never thought the cost of living could be pegged; for many years I have not believed that to be possible. Eighty per cent. of the cost of living is represented by wages, because 80 per cent. of the cost of everything is wages, and unless we peg wages we cannot peg the cost of living.
I cannot vote for the Labour Party's Motion, although I am sure it is inspired by a good heart—and some politics—because it wholly ignores my friends, the disabled ex-Service men. Also, the Motion is impossible of fulfilment. Nobody knows that better than the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand)who spent some part of his speech saying that be meant, not what was on the Order Paper, but something quite different. What is suggested cannot be done immediately, and that makes me suspect that the Motion is political tactics more than anything else.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Will the hon. Member, who


is the President of the British Legion, deny that when he is asking at British Legion meetings for more money for war pensioners he has refused to agree to a free vote in the House on the subject of an increase in pensions?

Sir I. Fraser: I feel it may be wholly irrelevant, but I am glad of the opportunity to answer that point briefly if Mr. Speaker will allow me to do so. I am sometimes asked by members of the British Legion and by members of old-age pensioners societies "Will you support a free vote on war pensions and old-age pensions in the House?" I have replied, "No, I will not."

Mr. Shurmer: Why not?

Sir I. Fraser: Because no person who has a sense of responsibility, and certainly no one who has sat on a Front Bench—[Interruption.]—

Mr. J. C. Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. An hon. Member has just referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser)as a "hypocrite." Is it correct to use that word in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I certainly did not hear that word. I should have taken objection to it if I had done so. If any hon. Member used that word, he ought to withdraw it.

Mr. Jennings: It was not what an hon. Member meant; it was what he said. He used the word "hypocrite."

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the word, but it is out of order.

Sir I. Fraser: I am grateful for the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), but I would rather deal with this myself. With regard to the free vote, it is very important that the situation should be known and publicised. No responsible person, certainly no one sitting on either Front Bench—I challenge right hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as the occupants of the Government Front Bench to deny this—could possibly agree to a free vote on an important financial matter such as the provision of £20 million for war pensions or £20 million, £50 million or £100 million for old-age pensions. Why not?

Because a free vote for one group must necessarily mean a free vote for the others. We cannot have it only for the old. We must have it for the ex-Service men, too, for the spinsters, the educationists, the agriculturists and, indeed, for every section of the community: the sick, the health services, all must have a free vote.
If we had a sectional vote on each occasion without the discipline of the Whips, without the discipline of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's review on national finances, we should at once find that our country was broke. In our wisdom—and not even the iconoclasts from Glasgow or those hon. Members opposite who are mumbling away can deny it—we have from Government to Government and from generation to generation prevented private Members from moving to expend the public purse. Only the Government can do that. Once a year the Chancellor must come here and balance his Budget.

Mr. Shurmer: Why not go to the conference and advocate bigger pensions?

Sir I. Fraser: That is quite irrelevant. The advocacy of bigger pensions has nothing to do with the free vote. The hon. Gentleman had better think again.

Mr. Shurmer: I am thinking.

Sir I. Fraser: I cannot spend too long on this because time is limited. Let it be clearly understood that no Government in this country—I challenge any Privy Councillor, not any hon. Member, because there are one or two most foolish ones opposite, to get up and deny what I am saying—can possibly allow a free vote. All must be subject to the discipline of the Chancellor's Budget. That is a matter of confidence, and it always must be.
Wage earners, salary earners, small shopkeepers, business men, professional men and owners of equity shares have all found that their incomes have gone up during the last few years. They have gone up quite considerably. One Government after another has tried to follow this rise in incomes generally in the payments made to the old, the sick and to ex-Service men. None has ever caught up.
I should like to spend a few minutes in dealing with the history of the ex-Service men, because I do not think that


it is quite right to allow, the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Pensions in the Labour Government and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to stand up and pat each other on the back, as they do, and say, "Aren't we both jolly good chaps; look at all the good things we have done." Let us judge that after my statement which is not an attack on any party or on any individual, but is, I think, a reflection on Britain.
In the Royal Warrant in 1919—a long time ago—in Article 24A, it is laid down that the war pension shall be 40s. so long as the cost of living figure is 215 points. I cannot elaborate this for lack of time, but it states that if the cost of living figure rises by 5 per cent. the 40s. will go up to a higher figure. In fact, the cost of living did not rise above 215 points for about twenty years. On the contrary, it went down. The Governments of the day, one after another, would have been perfectly entitled to put the pension down. They did not; they left it as it was. Eventually, in 1928, the Government stabilised it at 40s. and so it stood until the Second World War.
In 1928 Major Tryon, the then Minister of Pensions, came down to the House and said that the Government were going to stabilise the pension, but that it would remain based upon Article 24. He said that should the cost of living rise above 215 points the rate would be increased. It is very important that this should be remembered. It is also true to say that he gave a warning that if untoward events occurred the Government might well be compelled to take a fresh view of the matter. And, of course, there is no doubt that a new war with the great burden it places on the country is an untoward event.
The words that the Minister then used were "aggravated liabilities"—if the country suffered from aggravated liabilities, then the Government might have to think again. In spite of having to think again, the House will notice that when the Second World War came the Government of the day did, in fact, put the war pension on the cost of living ladder to which I have made reference. When a rise was given in 1942 it followed the ladder, and when a further rise was made in 1944 it followed the ladder again. So up to 1945 or 1946, or thereabouts, successive Governments, including the

war-time Government of all parties, have by their own acts as well as their statements not merely implied but emphasised that the original promise still stood, that if the figure went above 215 points the pension would go up also.
It was from then on that Governments began to fall away. I do not make any political point concerning that. I simply say that since 1944 no Government have, in fact, stuck to the old ladder. It is true that in 1946 the Government of the day put on 5s. In 1952, 10s. was put on and in 1955 12s. 6d. was put on. But they had left the ladder, and no Government have come back to it since. That is really the complaint of the British Legion, that the implied and stated promises then made have not been carried out by the nation.
All parties and all politicians are blameworthy in this matter—not any one party; not any one Minister. The pension reached 67s. 6d. and there it has stood for the last two years. The British Legion, as is very well known, made its own calculations some ten years ago and those calculations convinced them that the pension ought to be 90s. That is the basic rate about which I am talking.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Member seems to be arguing that the present pension rates are sufficient and that old-age pensioners fall into the same category as other people with small fixed incomes. Is that his argument?

Sir I. Fraser: No, it is not. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will listen he will hear what my argument is. He is quite wrong; it is nothing like that. I did not say that, and it is not anything like that.
I was saying that the pension is now 67s. 6d. and that the British Legion ten years ago calculated that it should be 90s. A good many people then said that it was a wild-cat figure. One Minister called it the British Legion figure—and even my figure. I admit that it is based on the best year, the best ladder, and that we made out the best figure. We stuck to our 90s., and the House should remember that 90s. is not very far away from the official Government figure, if the promises of the last 35 years had been kept. That is the very material point that the British Legion now wishes to make known.
I will vote for the Government Amendment. I feel that the Government will in fact, make a major improvement in war pensions——

Mr. Shurmer: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea when the Government will do it?

Sir I. Fraser: I have, but I will not say— —

Mr. Shurmer: Before the next Election?

Sir I. Fraser: Undoubtedly, before the next Election, or, putting it in another way, within the lifetime of this Parliament.
So as not to miss the point, I want to say that both sides may take credit for having brought in marriage and children's allowances, and for having increased the rates payable to the most severely disabled men. That has been done, step by step, over the last 20 years. The ex-Service men are most grateful, but that does not answer the main question. It is still a fact that 600,000 pensioners, or 95 per cent., have not had the increase which they feel was promised to them, and the increase that would match the increase in the cost of living.
Having spoken of the cost of living, I want to mention the standard of living. That is not quite the same thing. Without any doubt, in the last ten years our people have become better off than they were. I say that three-quarters, or even seven-eighths of them are better off in every respect. They have more fun, more amenities, more food, more clothes, better transport and more of it, more holidays—in every way they are better off. Relatively, however, the war pensioners, the old people and the sick people are worse off, so that the very system that makes three-quarters of our people richer makes the old and the dependant classes poorer.
Here I would add a warning to all who work with hand or brain today. Unless they watch out they, equally, will be poorer when they are older, because this inflation will not stop tomorrow or the next day and, if it goes on, any pensions that they think will accrue to them will suffer the same fate. It is not only the old and the sick—every worker today must care about this, because if this inflation goes on all that he wants in his old age will disappear.
It may be asked: in that case why advocate increases—will they not increase inflation? Let us get this in proportion. Not many days ago the Chancellor told us that last year, in one year, no less than £900 million was injected into the economy by increased wages and profits——

Mr. C. W. Gibson: Bogy, bogy.

Sir I. Fraser: No, it is not a bogy; it is a fact, and if the hon. Member will only listen, he will hear that I am not deploring the fact.
An amount of £900 million was injected into the economy by way of wages and extra profits last year. That caused inflation, but as all the wage earning classes got richer so, progressively, did the old, the sick and the dependent get poorer, because the money entering into the economy was drawing on the same amount of production.
Therefore, we are in the dilemma that we want the wheels to go on turning——

Mr. Shurmer: There must be less profits.

Sir I. Fraser: Profits were only 10 per cent. of that sum, and even if we washed them out altogether we would still have a problem of the same magnitude to deal with. The problem is not profits, but the fact that the amount of money available to buy the goods is greater than the goods available. So it is that I say that it would not be right for the community to say to the old, the sick and the dependent, "We intend to enjoy inflation, and we intend to go on with it. We shall have more wages, more salaries and more profits, more Income Tax cuts, more equity share benefits—we shall have all that—but you are to be worse off all the time."

Mr. Dodds: What are they to do about it?

Sir I. Fraser: I do not know—

Mr. Shurmer: Will the hon. Gentleman come into the Lobby with us?

Sir I. Fraser: No. To go into the Lobby with the party opposite would make matters infinitely worse. The effects of the economics of hon. Members opposite—many of whom, I think, have very good hearts—is so appalling a prospect for this country and for my friends


that I ant, and remain, a Tory. I do not know what the solution is, and I am not called upon to give one. I only say that the one thing that would not be right would be to make our old, our sick and our ex-Service men become poorer because we have not yet found out how to cure inflation.
To give some further point to this measurement that I am making of the proportions of the matter, I will take as an example the Bill to do what I would like to see done for disabled ex-Service men. The cost would be £20 million. That is ·04 per cent, of the total income of the State from taxation, which is about £5,000 million. This £20 million is ·04 per cent. of the State's total income, and that gives some idea of its size.
If the bill for old-age pensioners was four times as great, it would represent ·16 per cent. That is a very small part of the total income of the State, and a very small part of the £900 million which was added to our spending power in the shape of wages and profits last year. Another comparison is this. What I and many others want done for the ex-Service men would, in terms of earnings, cost four weeks' work a year for each of our adult earners.
That shows what a very small effort is required to put this thing right somehow, but how it is to be put right in the long run is not for me to say [Interruption.] There is plenty of time. I can go on for another hour or two, and the next hour will be the most interesting and controversial. [HON. MEMBERS: "Eight o'clock."] It is quite all right, because the House does not have to stop anything at eight o'clock. That is only a private arrangement, of which I have no wish to take any notice. I can go on just as long as I like. But I will try not to be diverted; I do not want to be.
I want to say a word about old-age pensions. They are obviously to be raised in this Parliament, but they cannot be raised immediately. Every hon. Member on each side knows that.

Mr. Shurmer: Many will die before they get it.

Sir I. Fraser: Yes, I am afraid that that is true, and no doubt a figure could be given of how many will die, because those statistics are known. That is not very clever.
It seems to me that we want to find some way of measuring how big old-age or retirement pensions ought to be. I do not think that they should be mere subsistence level pensions. That was what Lord Beveridge suggested, and it was what the Labour Party introduced. It was a great advance upon what we had had before. But we cannot go back to anything like that; we want something better than subsistence levels.
It seems to me that amenities should be taken into account. That is why my Amendment mentions the word. I do not doubt that within this Parliament proper provision will be made, but I want to say something about the order in which it should be made. The right hon. Gentleman asked that the raising of the National Assistance Board payments should be expedited so that they come first. I beg that they should come second, after the pensions themselves have been raised. The reason is that it causes tremendous and widespread hardship and heart-burning when, after the National Assistance Board payments have been raised the rise is taken away when the pension rates rise. I have seen a tremendous amount of misunderstanding over that point. I would think it was better to have the order reversed.
I want to make one other point concerning timing. Everyone in the House knows that we cannot raise old-age pensions or National Assistance Board payments immediately, but we can raise war pensions relatively quickly. That can be done because the procedure is by way of Royal Warrant. I should like the Government to do it as quickly as possible. I have said that on many occasions in public and I say it again in this House.
I have little else to say, except that both sides have done their best for war pensioners—up to a point. But both have stopped short of doing what a nation like ours should do. I ask that before this Parliament ends we should make a proper settlement of this matter—a settlement of which we can all be proud.

7.42 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I agree—and I believe that a large part of the House will agree—with one thing which was said by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), namely, that it is


a pity that this debate, upon what we probably all recognise to be one of the great issues of the day, has to be compressed into a highly inconveniently restricted scope.
I will say at once that it was certainly no wish or fault of mine that the House decided, earlier this afternoon, to spend two hours upon a matter which, relatively speaking, seems to me to be of infinitely smaller importance. I shall not waste time, and I hope that the House will hot want me to waste what little time—under the understanding—remains to me, in attempting to do more than deal realistically and sanely with what is, on the social service side of our affairs, the great issue of the day from the point of view Of the human issues involved and also of the very serious financial and economic questions which are involved.
I would have liked to follow up much of what was said in his very interesting and thoughtful speech by my Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), and it would have been interesting to have followed him into the question of the admitted change of policy of successive Governments upon the whole question of war pensions—from the old system after the First World War, in which the main emphasis was placed upon the basic rate, to the somewhat more selective treatment which both Governments have given the issue since the 1939–45 War.
In recent years more and more of the weight, relatively, has been put upon the allowances paid to the more seriously disabled men while the basic rate has, perhaps, not been raised to the levels to which, relatively, it was raised earlier. Those are the big and interesting questions upon which there is a good deal to be said on both sides—if I may say so with respect to my hon. Friend. I must seek to deal very quickly with the Motion.
Whatever may be said outside, I am quite certain that on the Floor of the House we shall want to deal with this issue not upon a naive and emotional basis—the basis which pretends that this is a simple matter, merely a case of a hard-hearted Government denying much-needed money to deserving people. Everybody, in this House at any rate, knows how infinitely more complex the issue is than that. Hon, Members know quite

well—as has been so well put in the pamphlet which hon. Members opposite have recently produced, associated with the name of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)—that increased provision for the old can be met only at the cost of those at present in work, and upon the basis of some willingness on their part to receive less by way of the good things of this world than they would otherwise receive.
This is not a simple and emotional question; it is one which involves a very careful weighing of what is the right amount to lay on the current producers for the benefit of the older section of the population. Even in the atmosphere of the end of this Session the House will not want to discuss this matter without having at least to some extent in mind the very formidable financial burdens which this State of ours has already accumulated in respect of the provision for old age.
We are spending today £450 million a year on retirement pensions. If the present rates of benefit and contribution were to remain unchanged over the next twenty years that figure would very nearly double. I make no reflection upon anybody or upon any Government; that is the inescapable result of decisions taken some years ago. With the present rates, the National Insurance Fund, even when allowance is made for the Exchequer contribution, will go into deficit next year to the extent of £41 million, and assuming the present basis to go on that figure will rise to several hundred million pounds over the next twenty years
I am not putting these figures before the House with any intention of seeking to argue that that means that at the appropriate moment changes in benefit cannot be made, but I am seeking to warn the House that what it does do is to give an indication that benefits will have to be met, whichever way the burden is spread as between contributions and the Exchequer, at a serious cost to the present working population. I hope that all of us will be prepared to consider this great issue against that background, and with those ideas in mind.
I do not regret anything about this debate, other than its relative shortness. The Motion, however, is a very odd vehicle for the debate. To begin with


its mover, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand)conceded that it was quite impracticable. He said that he appreciated that at the moment, when the House had decided to rise tomorrow until 29th October—when it would have an end of Session sitting of three days—the legislation which the Motion calls for was clearly impracticable.
We start on that basis. I shall not try to go hack into the question of what people should or should not have done; I am trying to deal with the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly admitted, first, that what the Motion asks for is, in present circumstances anyhow, impracticable. He then went on to explain that the Motion meant all sorts of things which are not included in it. He included, for the first time on the Floor of this House, a figure—and he seemed rather surprised that I should want to know what his figure meant. The reason is perfectly simple. It is the duty of anyone who speaks from this Box upon this sort of issue to remind the House of the cost of any proposal put forward. Unless the right hon. Gentleman will give me clear figures I cannot give him the cost of his proposals.
I shall, in fact, proceed to do so shortly. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have done so.''] Hon. Members opposite must be mind-readers, or must have a telepathic view of my notes, if they can know a figure of cost that I have not yet disclosed. As if to demonstrate that his own Motion will not do, the right hon. Gentleman said that it mentions only retirement pensions, but that if they were dealt with sickness and unemployment benefits would follow. I do not know why we are to take that for granted.
It was not what happened in 1951. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite did raise some retirement pensions in October, 1951, they left the main rates of sickness and unemployment benefit the same; and it is asking a good deal when the right hon. Gentleman proposes a Motion which he asks the House to carry and in which he gives what is his view, and then says that it means something which is inconsistent with the record of his party and himself the last time they were responsible for these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that it means war pensions. Once again,

in 1951, it did not mean war pensions. Whatever other case the right hon. Gentleman made out—and he spoke with his usual agreeable persuasiveness—he made out an overwhelming case for the Amendment moved at the beginning of the debate by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. The Amendment was designed, as my hon. Friend explained, to make it quite clear that the debate, and the ultimate decision of the House, should not be confined to the one category—admittedly immensely important and very large, but one category only—of recipients of National Insurance benefit; that it should be clear that the House was equally concerned with the sick and unemployed and with the war disabled, of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale spoke so movingly.
I put to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they take this matter to a Division if, in other words, they seek to resist the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, they are going back on what was said by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East in moving the Motion. It is our Amendment, and not the Motion, which makes quite clear that what we are concerned with and talking about is the whole broad picture of our social services and not one particular category of them.
I promised that I would give the right hon. Gentleman the cost of the proposal which he has told us he makes—though it is not in the Motion—of the £3 with nothing new for the dependants.
The cost would be £212 million a year at once, rising to £317 million in some years' time. If one puts the figure into the context of National Insurance, it would be the equivalent either of 4s. on the joint contribution, or, to put it in another way, 10d. on the standard rate of Income Tax. If what the right hon. Gentleman said was also carried out, and the other National Insurance benefits' increased at proportional amounts, the figure would be bigger. It would be £281 million. which would be equivalent to 5s. on the stamp, or Is. Id. on the Income Tax, and it would rise to £412 million after twenty years or so.
If the right hon. Gentleman found it impossible to resist the demand that he should follow the course which all his predecessors have followed, and make some adjustment at the same time for


dependants, the cost would rise to an even larger figure, £338 million, or over 6s. on the stamp; so that the House will realise that we are discussing figures of immense gravity.

Mr. James Griffiths: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to 6s., is that amount on the contribution of the worker, or is it shared?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would be 6s. on the joint contribution.
The Motion refers to the National Assistance Board, and I think that I may deal quickly with that part of it. This House put the initiative on the Assistance Board to propose changes in the scales of benefit, and I do not believe that any responsible hon. Member would deny that the Board has discharged that difficult and serious responsibility with conspicuous judgment and skill. The Board has made proposals resulting in changes on five occasions since 1948, and three times since 1951. This Government have complete confidence in the Assistance Board—of which the distinguished membership includes former hon. Members from both sides of the House—to do its duty when, in its judgment, the right time arrives.
The reference in the Motion to rents is almost completely irrelevant so far as the Assistance Board is concerned. I am able to tell the House precisely the way the Board intends to handle this question of rents. I am informed that except in cases where accommodation is shared by a son or daughter or other person in employment, and in a position to meet some of the increased rent, it is the intention of the Board to provide in an Assistance grant for the full amount of any permitted increase in a controlled rent; and for any reasonable increase where the rent is not controlled.
Even where—[Interruption.] This is a matter of some importance to people outside and I hope that the House will at least be interested enough to hear what is the policy. Even where accommodation is shared, the Board will give some help with the rent increase, though, obviously, the amount must depend on the facts in each case.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East referred to a particular case the facts of which I have covered in that

statement. The right hon. Gentleman slurred over the fact that the case he cited is an indication of the benefits of recent changes. As the right hon. Gentleman said himself, the lady in question is to be reimbursed for the increase in the rent and she is to have the advantage of having her house—which he rightly said had not been properly maintained—put properly in order. That, to me, seems a justification of the policies not only of my Department, but of the Departments of some of my right hon. Friends.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we and the Assistance Board had not been helpful in drawing the attention of people to the fact that they could be helped over rent problems. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows that on the Assistance Board order book there appear the words:
Let the Board's officers know if your rent is altered
it could not be plainer or more helpful.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)
 rose——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, I am sorry, I cannot give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is plenty of time."] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)would agree with that last interjection.

Mr. Marquand: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was not criticising the Assistance Board I was criticising him. I said I thought that he should have taken special measures to remind people of this fact, now that circumstances have changed. I know about the book. It is the new circumstances about which I complain.

Mr. S. Silverman: Since the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, may I assure him that he need not limit himself in any way by having regard to the next Motion upon the Order Paper, if that would prevent him from giving a more adequate reply to the case which has been made against him on the Motion we are now discussing. I will willingly give him the time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his habitual courtesy in giving permission, and for the habitually courteous way in which he gave that permission.

Mr.Allaun: Mr.Allaunrose——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have given way to a right hon. Gentleman and to an hon. Gentleman and I think that two in one "batch" is enough.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem always to be touchy if I or my right hon. and hon. Friends refer to their record in these matters. I should like to explain why it is necessary to do so. Some hon. Members opposite, for example, the hon. Member for Ince, seem to suggest in their speeches that the fact that we have not raised the rates even further than we have over recent years is due to some ideological bias, or prejudice, or lack of humanity. Surely, therefore, it is relevant—by way of reassuring such people as the hon. Member for Ince—to inform them of what was done by people in whom presumably they have confidence when they were confronted with these same problems. It is not done with any desire to point out weaknesses of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but to restore the level of the debate, because a good deal of emotional excitement seems to have intruded into it.
Let me therefore remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—I will pass very quickly from this delicate subject, if they wish—of what they themselves did when they came to review the rates of benefit in September, 1951, which was, by happy coincidence, on the eve of the General Election that year. They raised the rates of some pensions but not the main rates of sickness and unemployment benefit, or the rate of retirement pension for those who had not reached pension age; they left those rates of benefit at the old level. Compared with the pensions payable today the new rates they introduced were a good deal short in purchasing power. At present prices, they were worth 2s. 3d. less than the present purchasing power of the pension.
That was not done at a moment at which prices had not yet eroded benefits and rates of pension, but was a figure which the then Government quite deliberately fixed in the light of their knowledge of prices. It is, therefore, not good enough for right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, for good or bad reasons, made that decision, now, at this time of day, to attack and accuse us of being stony-hearted. We have not only maintained those benefits; my right hon.

Friend, now Lord Ingleby, raised them in 1955 to a higher level than existed when right hon. Gentlemen made that increase.
Despite the permission granted by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne I do not wish to abuse his hospitality but there are one or two things I must say. Propaganda outside this House suggests what I think no hon. Member would seriously argue, that there are large numbers of retirement pensioners living on the bare pension and nothing else. There may be a very limited number. It is unwise in this field ever to be completely dogmatic. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the great majority of pensioners do not depend upon the bare pension for their living. Some have private pensions from superannuation schemes, which today cover one in every three insured workers. Some earn an incremented National Insurance pension.
Half the men pensioners retiring today have an incremented pension. The average rate of it is over 9s. 6d. Others have means of their own or live with their families. For the rest, there is the back-stop of National Assistance. The right hon. Gentleman asked me for the figures for the latest date of retirement pensioner households in receipt of National Assistance. The figure is 948,500, which shows a very small change for the end-June figure compared with the March figure and, as a percentage of the total number of retired pensioners, is considerably below what it was some years ago.
The number of pensioners has, of course, increased. Therefore, perhaps, the percentage rather than the total gives a truer impression of the size of the problem. I am sure that the House will want to bear in mind the point that, with the scales fixed as they are, there can be few cases indeed in which any pensioner is bound to live on the bare National Insurance pension. That is a very important aspect of the matter.
The House knows that the Government have been very carefully considering this enormously important problem, with a view to finding the best solution, providing adequately and fairly for the older section of our population, while not imposing an intolerable burden upon the rest. The House knows that the Government have been working on this problem


and knows, also, that I am not in a position tonight to give an account of what we intend. It would be completely unrealistic if I were to do so, because changes in National Insurance rates of benefit and contributions require legislation, and that cannot take place this Session. Nor would it be right now for me to anticipate next Session's legislative programme. All I can say is that when our proposals appear they will be in accord with our long record of sound and humane social legislation.
It is abundantly clear, in particular from what has been said by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, that his Motion will not do, and that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend represents the true sense of this House, which is that the need, and, indeed, the

duty, falls on every Government to give the most careful attention and concern to all the recipients in our social service system and not only to one category, however important.

I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will now feel that, having demonstrated the need for this Amendment himself, what should go out from this House is an indication of our concern for all the categories of social service pensioners. I hope that he will not seek to resist our determination to amend his Motion. If he persists in it as it stands, it will be our duty to put him right.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes, 295.

Division No. 179.]
AYES
[8.7 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Albu, A. H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dye, S.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Anderson, Frank
Edelman, M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holnn &amp; St.Pncs. S.)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Benson, G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Beswick, Frank
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Blenkinsop, A.
Finch, H. J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Blyton, W. R.
Fletcher, Eric
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Boardman, H.
Forman, J. C.
Kenyon, C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
King, Dr. H. M.


Bowles, F. G.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Lawson, G. M.


Boyd, T. C.
Gibson, C. W.
Ledger, R. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Gooch, E. G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Brockway, A. F.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, Anthony
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lewis, Arthur


Burke, W. A.
Grey, C. F.
Lipton, Marcus


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Callaghan, L. J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MacDermot, Niall


Carmichael, J.
Grimond, J.
McInnes, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hale, Leslie
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Champion, A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McLeavy, Frank


Chapman, W. D.
Hamilton, W. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hannan, W.
Mahon, Simon


Clunie, J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Coldrick, W.
Hayman, F. H.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfd, E.)


Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Healey, Denis
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Cove, W. G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mason, Roy


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mayhew, C. P.


Cronin, J. D.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Mellish, R. J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Holman, P.
Messer, Sir F.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Holt, A. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Houghton, Douglas
Mitchison, G. R.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Monslow, W.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hoy, J. H.
Moody, A. S.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hubbard, T. F.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mort, D. L.


Deer, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moss, R.


Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, A.


Dodds, N. N.
Hunter, A. E.
Noel-Baker, Hon. P. (Derby, S.)




O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Timmons, J.


Oram, A. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Tomney, F.


Orbach, M.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Usborne, H. C.


Oswald, T.
Ross, William
Viant, S. P.


Owen, W. J.
Royle, C.
Watkins, T. E.


Padley, W. E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Weitzman, D.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
West, D. G.


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Pargiter, G. A.
Skeffington, A. M.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Parkin, B. T.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Wigg, George


Paton, John
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Pearson, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Peart, T. F.
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, Frederick


Pentland, N.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, David (Neath)


Popplewell, E.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Prentice, R. E.
Steele, T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Probert, A. R.
Stonehouse, John
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Proctor, W. T.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Pryde, D. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Stress, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Randall, H. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Woof, R. E.


Rankin, John
Swingler, S. T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Redhead, E. C.
Sylvester, G. O.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Reeves, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Zilliacus, K.


Reid, William
Taylor, John (West Lothian)



Rhodes, H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thornton, E.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gurden, Harold


Alport, C. J. M.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cunningham, Knox
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Currie, G. B. H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Armstrong, C. W.
Dance, J. C. G.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Ashton, H.
Davidson, Viscountess
Harvey, Sir Arthur (Macclesfd)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Atkins, H. E.
Deedes, W. F.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hay, John


Balniel, Lord
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Barber, Anthony
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Barlow, Sir John
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Barter, John
Drayson, G. B.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
du Cann, E. D. L.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Duthie, W. S.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Elliot, R. W.(N'castle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bidgood, J. C.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hirst, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Erroll, F. J.
Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
Hope, Lord John


Black, C. W.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hornby, R. P.


Body, R. F.
Forrest, G.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Fort, R.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Foster, John
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Braine, B. R.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Freeth, Denzil
Howard, John (Test)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Gammans, Lady
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bryan, P.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Glover, D.
Hurd, A. R.


Campbell, Sir David
Glyn, Col. R.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Carr, Robert
Godber, J, B.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Cary, Sir Robert
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)


Channon, Sir Henry
Goodhart, Philip
Hyde, Montgomery


Chichester-Clark, R.
Cough, C. F. H.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Gower, H. R.
Iremonger, T. L.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Cole, Norman
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Cooke, Robert
Green, A.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Cooper, A. E.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)







Jones, Rt. Hon. Audrey (Hall Green)
Mawby, R. L.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Sharples, R. C.


Kaberry, D.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Shepherd, William


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Kershaw, J. A.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Kimball, M.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Kirk, P. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Soames, Christopher


Lagden, G. W.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Speir, R. M.


Lambton, Viscount
Neave, Airey
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nicholls, Harmar
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Leather, E. H. C.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Leavey, J. A.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Storey, S.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Page, R. G.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G.(Sutton Coldfield)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Teeling, W.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Partridge, E.
Temple, John M.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Longden, Gilbert
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Pitman, I. J.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pott, H. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


McAdden, S. J.
Powell, J. Enoch
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


McKibbin, A. J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Profumo, J. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ramsden, J. E.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Rawlinson, Peter
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Redmayne, M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wall, Major Patrick


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Renton, D. L. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Webbe, Sir H.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Rippon, A. G. F.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Maddan, Martin
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maitland, Cdr. J.F.W.(Horncastle)
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wood, Hon. R.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Roper, Sir Harold



Marshall, Douglas
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mathew, R.
Russell, R. S.
Mr. Oakshott and


Maude, Angus
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Colonel J. H. Harrison.


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, noting that the rates of war pensions, retirement pensions and other National Insurance benefits have twice been increased since

October, 1951, and that the rates of national assistance have been raised three times since that date, this House expresses its confidence that Her Majesty's Government and the National Assistance Board will take such further action as may from time to time be just and fair both to the recipients of these payments and to the community as a whole.

JOHN WILLSON VICKERS (ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S FIAT)

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the execution of John Willson Vickers, is of opinion that his conviction of capital murder is contrary to the declared intention of Her Majesty's Government when they recommended the Homicide Act to Parliament, and deplores the failure of Mr. Attorney-General to grant his fiat to enable Vickers to bring a further appeal to the House of Lords.
I have not been able to find the last occasion on which a Motion of this kind was moved. If there was one it must have been very many years ago and, I suppose, in vastly different circumstances. One puts down and moves a Motion of this kind with great regret and with a great deal of doubt and diffidence because, although it is the undoubted right of the House of Commons to submit any executive or administrative act of any Minister who is responsible to the House of Commons to any proper survey, scrutiny, or criticism, one must admit at the same time that it would not be to render a service to the administration of our law if every executive and administrative act in the course of the operation of the law were to be subject to review politically by the House of Commons.
One undertakes a grave burden in moving a Motion of this kind, but I hope to satisfy the House—and I mean both sides of it—before I have finished, that this Motion is amply justified by the facts, deserves the support of the House, and, if the Government Whips were not on, would in fact be adopted by a substantial majority.
The Motion divides into three parts. The first part must inevitably be a criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty and sympathise with him in it, but I ask him not to include in his observations the comment he has just made about the Government Whips, because it seems to me that this is an issue upon which no one would vote against his conscience.

Mr. Silverman: I am really more grateful than I can say to the hon. and gallant

Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). I wish that he were right. I am really amazed to find myself in possession of better information about the affairs of the party opposite than he is, for I say—the Government can deny it if they wish—that they have a three-line Whip out against this Motion tonight. Let no hon. Member say that three-line Whips and votes in accordance with them are always the same thing as votes in accordance with a man's conscience on this issue. We know better.
The first part of my Motion must inevitably be a criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for his failure to advise Her Majesty to reprieve this man. One knows that it is a heavy and difficult duty which our law lays upon the Home Secretary, and no one doubts that he brings the greatest care and attention to his decision. He cannot always be right. Reviewing the decisions made by various Home Secretaries over a number of years, it is quite evident that some of them were greatly, lamentably and tragically wrong.
In this case, one would have thought that every single factor tending in favour of a reprieve was present. We know what factors influence the Home Office and the Home Secretary. Naturally, the case must be looked at on its merits. It would be an evil thing if a man's life were used as a kind of pawn in some political tug-of-war between those who want a particular reform of the law and those who do not. It would be an unworthy thing if a man were hanged merely in order to demonstrate that the capital penalty was still effective and could still be used, in order to allay public fears that, perhaps, it would never be applied again.
We know what factors influence Home Secretaries, because the Home Office has, on two occasions in comparatively modern times, told commissions of inquiry what they are. It is very difficult to find a single factor which the Home Office in evidence before the Royal Commission gave as, in most cases, tending to bring about a reprieve which is not present here. The man was young. His crime was unpremeditated. He had no criminal record, save one trivial juvenile offence, I think, many years before. He had no particular animus against his victim. I am quoting the things which the


Home Office has given in evidence before Royal Commissions time after time. The events which resulted in the lamentable death of a worthy and respected, indeed, loved, old lady arose suddenly and without any kind of planning, intention or premeditation. Those are the very things which more than one Home Secretary has told inquiry after inquiry are the things which tend to bring about a reprieve.
What was there in this case which was so exceptional as to defeat all those matters which, normally, would apply? The Home Secretary ought to tell us. He owes the House an explanation about it. This was the first execution in two years. Surely, there was overwhelming public reason for not bringing the gallows back, except in a clear case.
This is not a clear case. But before leaving it finally, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention was called to an issue of the Daily Express of Wednesday, 24th July, on the morning after the execution—a most sensational affair in which the prison chaplain is quoted as to the man and as to the execution. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman what this vicar of Christ in Durham Gaol had to say about it:
John Vickers, man of faith. Inside all of us there is a hidden something—call it faith if you like—and this man had a tremendous fund of it.
Then he is reported as saying, speaking of the execution:
He wanted it that way. He would have been disappointed if it had not happened.
The man pleaded not guilty. He went to the Court of Criminal Appeal to have the conviction upset. When he failed, he applied to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for his fiat to appeal further to the House of Lords. It does not seem very consistent with being disappointed if he had not been hanged.
The report went on to say:
Vickers went to the gallows as if he were looking forward to something. He told me last night that he hated all the fuss about the appeals to the Home Secretary and the messages to the Queen.
I am not going to bore the House with the rest of this vulgar piece of macabre sensationalism. Vickers was no hero. He is not made a hero by being hanged. His life was, as Hobbes described the life of

man, without law, nasty, brutish and short. But whether he was entirely responsible for all that is a matter which it is perhaps hardly worth while to investigate, although one hopes that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did investigate it, because it was a sad story, before he came to his decision.
I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman by what authority does this servant of the State communicate to the Press statements of this kind. Has he taken any action about it? Has he made any inquiry into it? Is it right in future that prison chaplains, after executions or before them, shall call Press conferences and give to the Press, so that they may spread them in streamer headlines, the last intimacies of a man about to be executed? I know that when one of the Sunday newspapers taking part in a campaign purported, or threatened, to report statements made by the previous executioner, the Home Office sent high officers of the police down to its offices to threaten all kinds of prosecutions if it revealed, contrary to the Official Secrets Act, matters of this kind.
I should like to know what action the right hon. Gentleman has taken or will take about this, especially bearing in mind that the reverend gentleman was not even telling the truth, because he was not the man's chaplain at all. The man's chaplain was a Methodist chaplain, and the Methodist chaplain has written to me telling me what he thought about Vickers. He tells me that he wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and told him about it as well, so that this gentleman, the chaplain who gave his sensational Press statements, was not even telling the truth.

Mr. John Mackie: Mr. John Mackie (Galloway) rose——

Mr. Silverman: I would rather not give way. I do not want to be too long.
That is what I want to say about the first part of the Motion. I come to the second part. When questions were asked of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about what we said was the conflict between the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal and what the Government had declared that Section 1 of the Homicide Act would mean if the House adopted it, during the discussions in Committee and in Second and Third Reading, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have no doubt with perfect sincerity,


was a little indignant with us and denied it completely. I ask whether he has had the opportunity of looking at the record since. I have taken a little care to do it and I will endeavour to establish this second leg of my argument by actual quotation.
In the first place, I should like to draw the attention of the House to what was said by the then Home Secretary and by the present Attorney-General himself on Second Reading. First, on 15th November last year the then Home Secretary, moving the Second Reading, had this to say:
We propose to take out of the category of murder those homicides about which opinion has long been uneasy: homicides which are murder only by virtue of the doctrine of constructive malice; homicides by people who, though not insane, are gravely abnormal; homicides under severe provocation by words alone; and homicides in pursuance of a suicide pact."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November. 1956: Vol. 560, c. 1148.]
The only part of that paragraph which is relevant to my present argument is the second sentence,
homicides which are murder only by virtue of the doctrine of constructive malice".
They were proposing to take that out.
The next quotation I should like to make is from the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself:
The first part of the Bill follows, although not entirely, recommendations of the Royal Commission and of the Committee to which I have already referred.
That was the committee of some right hon. and hon. Friends of the Attorney-General who had produced the pamphlet about amendments to the law of murder. The right hon. and learned Gentleman continued:
Clause 1, in relation to constructive malice, departs to some extent from the Royal Commission's recommendation and perhaps I should draw attention lo that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1251.]
Clearly, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying was, "With one exception Clause 1 is intended to adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission." I think that is clear. The exception, the point in which they did not accept the recommendation of the Royal Commission, was that they improved upon it. The Royal Commission had recommended that the doctrine of constructive malice should still apply to accomplices.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on in the rest of that passage of his speech to explain that the Government did not agree with the Royal Commission about that. With that exception they accepted the view of the Royal Commission and were representing to the House that their Clause I would have the effect, and was intended to have the effect, of enacting the recommendation of the Royal Commission.
Now let us see. We come now to the Committee stage, in which Clause I was being discussed and Amendments were being suggested to it. I quote from the Attorney-General during that Committee stage on 27th November, 1956. He is replying to and rejecting an Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who had argued that nothing should be murder unless there was an intention to kill, either express or to be derived from the seriousness of the injure which the accused had intended to inflict. The Attorney-General is rejecting that and he is saying:
That would be a narrowing of the present definition as applied in the courts …
The right hon. and learned Gentleman goes on:
Of course, all these matters were considered by the Royal Commission, and it is interesting to note that in paragraph 472 the Royal Commission expressed this view …
Then the Attorney-General quotes from the Royal Commission, and I shall give a further quotation from the Report itself in a minute or two. I am sorry to be so detailed in these quotations, but I hope that the House will bear with me because I have undertaken to establish the second leg of my argument.

Dr. Donald Johnson: May I ask the hon. Member a question?

Mr. Silverman: If it is absolutely necessary to the argument.

Dr. Johnson: Is this crime one of constructive malice?

Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Member will have a little patience with me, he will appreciate that it is exactly that question I am endeavouring to answer, but it takes a little time. One cannot say "Yes" or "No" without argument. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]


Naturally, because this is exactly the matter which is in controversy between US.

Mr, Philip Bell: Why not say "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Silverman: I hope that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson)will make the effort to follow me, and I hope that at the end of the argument he will at least know what I mean.
I was quoting the Attorney-General in Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
Of course, all these matters were considered by the Royal Commission, and it is interesting to note that in paragraph 472 the Royal Commission expressed this view:
'We believe that few people would dispute the propriety of making the definition of murder wide enough to include cases where death is caused by an act intended to cause serious bodily injury.'
There the Royal Commission is expressing what I believe is the view of the majority of people that it is proper to have a definition wide enough to include cases where death is caused by an act intended to cause serious bodily injury.

Mr. P. Bell: I agree.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Member should not agree too soon. Let him wait until he sees where the argument leads.
The Attorney-General continued:
Of course it is right to say that there was some comment by the Royal Commission in that paragraph on the meaning that might be attached to the words 'grievous bodily harm'.
Hon. Members will bear in mind that these words are different from "serious bodily injury."

Mr. P. Bell: Well!

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member may think the distinction perhaps a little fine drawn, but I again beg him not to draw his conclusions too hastily. I did not draw these distinctions. They have been drawn by people much abler than me over hundreds of years.
The Attorney-General continued:
It was said in that paragraph that if any change was made in the wording, such as to say 'intended to kill or to endanger life', it did not believe that it would lead to any great difference in the day-to-day demonstration of the law; and its impression was that in practice today, except in certain cases of killing

while committing a felony or resisting arrest, which this Clause would mean would not amount to murder, a person would seldom, if ever, be convicted of murder unless there was evidence that he had wilfully put life in jeopardy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1956; Vol. 561, c. 252.]
I contend that the House will have no great difficulty in understanding, having heard that quotation, what exactly the Attorney-General in that passage was inviting the Committee to believe. He was saying that if, of course, there is an intention to kill, that is murder. One could not limit any sensible definition of murder to cases in which there was an absolute, express, admitted, unchallenged intention to kill, because people are held by our law, and rightly held by our law, to intend the reasonable and probable consequences of what they do.
What the Attorney-General was saying, though, was that if a man intends to cause serious bodily injury—which he defines in the case passage as "wilfully putting life in jeopardy"—'then it is fair to regard that as being evidence of an intention to kill. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and he was saying that with the authority of the Royal Commission.
In paragraph 483 of the Report of the Royal Commission no change is recommended in our definition of murder in this respect. The Report states:
We find ourselves in agreement with those eminent witnesses who considered that, apart from the question of constructive malice, the existing definition of murder in English law is in substance satisfactory; our only reservation is on the point discussed in paragraph 472 about intent to cause grievous bodily harm. We have found nothing in the law of other countries which might lead us to depart from that opinion. None of the alternative definitions proposed can be regarded as satisfactory, and we believe that it is impracticable to frame a definition which would effectively limit the scope of murder and the resulting liability to capital punishment and would not have overriding disadvantages in other respects.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to say, if he wishes, that this recommendation preserves in the definition of murder the intention to cause grievous bodily harm, and no doubt he had that in mind when he denied the accusation we made the other day that the decision in the Court of Criminal Appeal was in conflict with it. It will be seen, however, that the conclusion and


recommendation of the Royal Commission is expressly made subject to paragraph 472, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has himself quoted.
Let us see what the Royal Commission said. I will not read it all, because I do not want to take too long. This is the statement:
We should therefore prefer to limit murder to cases where the act by which death is caused is intended to kill or to 'endanger life' or is known to be likely to kill or endanger life.
Agreed? I agree too. Will hon. Gentlemen agree with the next sentence:
But we do not believe that, if this change were made, it would lead to any great difference in the day-to-day administration of the law. Our impression is that in practice the courts have been moving in this direction and that today, except in certain cases of killing while committing a felony or resisting arrest, a person would seldom, if ever, be convicted of murder unless there was evidence that he had wilfully put life in jeopardy.
Is everybody agreed? Very well.
I want to give one more quotation. If we are all agreed about that, I wish to ask the House to look at the judgment in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and if there is any hon. Member who can reconcile that judgment with any of the things that the House has now accepted, I shall be very grateful if he will explain to me how it can be reconciled.
I now want to cry in aid the Lord Chief Justice, because he presided over the Court of Criminal Appeal. One of the peculiarities of our law is that the Lord Chief Justice sits as a judge at the trial of first instance, and, having done that, he then presides—not, of course, in the same case—over the Court of Criminal Appeal. Not content with that, he also sits as a judge in the highest court of appeal, in the House of Lords, and, over and above that, he feels himself entitled to take part politically in controversy about the same matters in the debates in the House of Lords.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Never politically.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman probably means "not party politics". I agree with him. I did not make any such charge. However, whether this country should retain or abolish capital punishment is a political question. It is obviously a question to be decided by the legislature. The Lord Chief Justice felt it right to take an active and

prominent part in one side of that controversy. I am not complaining about it. Our law and constitution give him that right, and he is not to be criticised for exercising it. All I say is that it is a rather anomalous situation.
I now want to direct the attention of the House to what the Lord Chief Justice said to the jury when he was presiding over the court which tried Bentley. In this part of his summing up he is dealing not with Bentley's case but with Craig's case. He is dealing, in his usual distinguished and lucid way, with the difference between what one has to prove if one is charged with murdering a policeman and what one has to prove if one is charged with murdering anyone else. He is, quite rightly, pointing out a provision of the law which we have now removed by the Homicide Act, which is that one defence open to a man accused of murder in any other case is not open to a man accused of murdering a policeman. He quotes an even more distinguished judge, Mr. Justice Brett, who afterwards became Lord Esher, and says:
Now I cannot do better to illustrate this than to read to you a few lines from a direction given by one of the greatest judges of Victorian times—Mr. Justice Brett, who was afterwards Lord Esher—to a jury in a case were a police officer was killed by a kick—not a kick on the head.
The Lord Chief Justice said:
A kick in the ordinary way would not be grievous bodily harm; it might hurt …

Mr. P. Bell: If the hon. Member comes to Lancashire we will give him a kick that will be grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman always entertains us with interventions, but I hope he will forgive me if I say that this is hardly a suitable occasion for such an intervention.
The Lord Chief Justice, quoting Mr. Justice Brett about what constitutes a capital crime, said:
A kick in the ordinary way would not be grievous bodily harm; it might hurt, it might wound, but it would not he grievous bodily harm. A kick is not like a blow with a fist, is not anything approaching the use of a deadly weapon; but unhappily, the kick, though it was not intended to kill, did kill a police officer".
The man was rightly convicted of murder because it was a police officer. If it had not been a police officer, the Lord Chief Justice, supported by Mr. Justice Brett, was telling the jury that it would


not have been murder at all. So we are all now quite clear, are we not? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should like to——

Mr. P. Bell: Mr. P. Bell  rose—

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again. We have to finish at ten o'clock and there are others who want to speak. I have given way several times.
I want to resume by pointing out what I think most of the House is clear about. It is clear about this. If a man intends to kill, that is murder. If a man intends to put life in jeopardy even though he did not intend to do more that is murder. If he commits some assault not intending and not likely to put life in jeopardy then it is not murder unless the victim is a policeman and after the Homicide Act, 1957, it is not murder even then. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was telling the Committee that this Clause meant.
I should now like to refer to the report of what the Court of Criminal Appeal decided. The Lord Chief Justice is now dealing with the summing up, and he is doing what, I think, everyone would regard as a very necessary thing, having regard to the alterations and amendments in the law. When altering the definition of murder, it becomes vitally important that juries who are called upon to try cases of murder should know exactly what the law now is. To quote the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)addressing, on another matter, the American Bar Association, at the Guildhall, last night:
Justice cannot be a hit or miss affair.
This is the first case on this point with which the Court of Criminal Appeal is called upon to deal. It is expressly asked to deal with the question: precisely what intention must the prosecution prove if it wants to prove a case of murder and, still more, of capital murder? What does the Lord Chief Justice say? He describes, in the earlier part of the judgment, what the man did. He had intended to commit petty larceny, break into a shop and rob the till. He was unarmed. He had picked a place where the woman was stone deaf and he thought therefore she would not be disturbed and he would not be disturbed. He was disturbed. She came towards him. She attacked him—she had every right to attack him; she

scratched his face; she had every right to scratch his face—and then he panicked and he hit her many blows with his fist.

Mr. P. Bell: What age was she?

Mr. Silverman: He also may have kicked her after she fell, although I am not sure. There was some evidence as to that but that evidence was contradicted. The hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt believe in my sincerity when I say that I hope that no one in the House will believe that I want for one moment to say a single word in defence or extenuation of that. It was a horrible thing to do. It was completely unjustified and the man deserved to be severely punished for what he did. All that is common ground. What we are discussing is whether, on the basis of what we have been examining, he was guilty of murder. It has to be remembered that he had no premeditation. He had no weapon. He used no violence except with his fists, and the whole thing arose, as it were, out of the circumstances and was not in any way planned.
All these are the facts, proved by the prosecution and accepted by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell)may go on shaking his head, but he will no doubt remember the old case where an advocate who saw his learned opponent doing that said to the bench, "My learned friend is shaking his head, but when you have known my learned friend as long as I have you will know that when he shakes his head there is nothing in it."——

Mr. P. Bell: Mr. P. Bell
rose——

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry. I cannot give way. I want to——

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: It is doubtful if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell)is sober.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it correct for the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock)to accuse someone on these benches of not being sober?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I did not catch that word myself. Had it been said, it would have been very much out of order. Mr. Silverman.

Mrs. Braddock: Would it have been out of order if it was true?

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry that my speech is longer than I had intended, but it is being prolonged by others.
Hon. Gentlemen will know to what passages I am referring, and perhaps others of my hon. Friends will quote them. I say that in his judgment, the Lord Chief Justice means, and says in so many words, that if a man uses more force than is trivial, more than is enough to push the woman out of the way, and then, by reason of her age, or physical condition or some other exceptional circumstance peculiar to her she dies, when the man did not intend that she should die, when he never intended to put her life in jeopardy, he is guilty of murder.
I say that it is utterly impossible, by any process of ratiocination I can think of, to reconcile that judgment with any of the things that I have so far quoted—completely and utterly impossible. The two definitions are entirely different. There is a direct conflict between the interpretation put on the law by the Lord Chief Justice and the interpretation put on the law by the Royal Commission, accepted by the Attorney-General, accepted by the Home Secretary then who moved it, and accepted by the House of Commons on the basis that it was already the law of the land.
Now I come to my final point. I think that I will have carried with me most hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in saying that there is a complete conflict between the law as laid down by the Lord Chief Justice in that case and the law as laid down by the Lord Chief Justice himself in the other case, in the judgment from which I have quoted. But, supposing I am wrong, is there any hon. Member who will now doubt that the matter which the Court of Criminal Appeal decided, even if we think that it decided it rightly, was anything else than a matter of exceptional public importance, and that it was of vital public interest to have it decided rightly? Was not it? Does anybody doubt that?

Sir Peter Agnew: rose——

Mr. Silverman: I cannot give way any more. The hon. Member must remember that the Lord Chief Justice himself said that it was—and because he thought that it was he would not allow the first Court of Criminal Appeal, consisting of three judges, to decide it. He said, "This is a point of such importance that we must have a full court", and he adjourned the argument to be heard again by five judges. He did that only because, as he said—and these are his own words—"This is a matter of grave importance". I agree that the judges were not unanimous. Their duty when they are not unanimous is laid down by the Court of Criminal Appeal Act; they must give judgment in accordance with the majority. That is in Section I of the Act.
The only reason the Lord Chief Justice expressly decided to have the matter argued again in a fuller court was—what?—that they were not agreed. If they were not agreed the point must have been one of some difficulty. It must also have been one of importance, because he said that, too. So here we have a point of difficulty and of importance—and obviously one which it was in the public interest to have rightly decided.
The Attorney-General thought so, too, at one time, because it was only at that stage that he intervened. He was not in charge of the prosecution; he had nothing to do with the prosecution. He did not appear in the case until after the Lord Chief Justice had said, "We are not agreed. This is a point of exceptional difficulty and it is a point of grave importance." Then the Attorney-General appeared. What for? In order to make certain—and this was his only right to intervene—that the case was properly presented to the court, because it was a question of grave importance and because it was in the public interest to get a right decision.
Suppose he had lost? Suppose the Court of Criminal Appeal had allowed the appeal? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman have refrained from going to the House of Lords? Would he not have given himself a fiat to go? Would not he have thought that this point of exceptional difficulty and of public importance should be decided in the way he thought it right to have it decided? Of course


he would. He would have been neglecting his duty if he had not. But is it seriously possible to argue that a matter is of grave difficulty, which it is in the public interest to have rightly decided, if one wins, but not if one loses? Is that a tenable proposition? Would anyone defend it?
The duty laid upon the Attorney-General by the Court of Criminal Appeal Act is to grant his fiat to the House of Lords, if it is asked for, in any case where the point involved is of exceptional difficulty and where it is in the public interest that a further appeal should be brought. Yet the right hon. and learned Member refused his fiat. Why? Is he to be heard now to say—after his intervention in the case—that it was not a matter of public importance or of grave difficulty?

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. Member will certainly hear me—and I hope at length—if he gives me any time to reply to him.

Mr. Silverman: He has a chance now, and he has had a chance before—more than once. I say that there is no reasonable man who believes that the right hon. and learned Member could possibly have been right to intervene when he did and then refuse his fiat. He might have been right not to intervene; he might have been right not to give his fiat—but he could not have been right to intervene himself on the ground that the case was of public importance and then to refuse his fiat on the ground that it was not. And that is what he did.
I have one final word. I may be asked whether I am prepared to put this matter to a vote. I should be delighted to ascertain the opinion of the House of Commons on this matter; but we know from experience that what the House of Commons thinks when the Whips are off is quite different from what it thinks when the Whips are on. We have had examples of that time after time even in the debates on capital punishment. Had the House of Commons had its way, we should have no capital punishment at all in this country at the moment.
I am not interested in a Division merely to prove that the Government have more Members than we have. We know that already. If the Government will take off

the Whips and invite each hon. Member to vote according to his own conscience for or against the Motion, I should be delighted to put it to the vote, and very ready to accept the result.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to second the Motion.
There remains to me only a few seconds in which to second this Motion and there were points I wished to make because I made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—with whom I have been associated in these matters on a number of occasions—that I do not go the whole way with him in some of the points which he has made so conscientiously and ably, if somewhat volubly.
On 1st July this year, the Court of Criminal Appeal was called on to consider the first two appeals under the Homicide Act. It had given some directions before, but these were the two first appeals. Curiously enough, they involved not dissimilar cases. There was the case of Dunbar who broke into a house by breaking a window and went up the stairs and, knowing the house was occupied by an elderly lady of 83, went to her bedroom and when she was roused, fearing he was recognised, took up a lemonade bottle and battered in her head with a series of blows many of which could have caused death. Then there was the case of Vickers, which I think was an abominable crime. He broke into premises and used violence to a lady of a kind described in the Report as of moderate to slight character. The lady's death was caused by shock. I do not mean the shock of surprise, but traumatic shock which is constantly associated with such an attack.
Both these men were tried, and under that extraordinary Section 5 (1)which—for some curious reason that was criticised at great length in the debates on the Bill before it became an Act—selects theft as the one particular crime which will support a capital murder verdict. If a person commits a killing in the course of committing a theft, it is capital murder, whereas if a man broke into a house in order to rape a woman and she was killed without a murderous intent, it would not be capital murder. Hon. Members pointed out during the debates in


this House the many anomalies and there were various reasons given for them, but I have no desire to go over all that again now.
The defences raised in these two cases were quite different. In the case of Dunbar there was really no defence except a possible medical defence, and the new defence of diminished responsibility was raised. A psychopath was called to give evidence for the defence—[Laughter.]—a psychiatrist was called, who gave evidence for the defence and said that, in his view, Dunbar was a psychopath; and the medical evidence for the prosecution at least admitted that if he was not a psychiatric case, he was certainly not a very bright individual. This issue was put to a jury which returned a verdict of capital murder and the case went to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The case of Vickers was put to a jury. He was defended mainly on the ground that there was no intention to kill; that death had occurred in the course of some violence which could not reasonably be conceived as likely to cause death and which the medical evidence said was not likely to cause it. It had caused the death of an old woman of 73, but all of us know that comparatively slight violence may well cause the death of a woman of 73.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said that in the first instance three judges were assembled to listen to the Vickers appeal. They discussed the preliminary point—I think it was mentioned by my right hon. Friend who was formerly the Attorney-General during the debates in this House—as to whether if this was a case of grievous bodily harm, that would be a separate offence which would be taken out under Section 1 of the Act. This wording really is so confusing that the fact that judges might have come to that conclusion at least confirms some of the things we said during our debates on the subject. Some judges did for a moment think that there was a point for consideration. The Lord Chief Justice summoned a court of five judges. One of the most distinguished lawyers practising at the Bar has said he is doubtful whether the Lord Chief Justice has that power and whether the court might not be unconstitutional.
In the Dunbar case the court said that although this was a doctrine which had been brought from Scotland and although the decision of the English House of Lords no longer applied to Scotland they felt that they must apply the decision of 1943 which was unchallenged—it could not be appealed against because the court finally quashed the conviction on other grounds—which said that where the onus of defence had been put upon the accused that onus was not as strong an onus as rests on the Crown.
The House will remember that we have placed some onus upon the accused. If a man is found in possession of Government property it is for the accused to prove that he had got it honestly and if found giving money to a public servant with whom he is associated in a business transaction it is for the accused to establish that he was giving it innocently. The reason for that is clear. It is the difficulty of proof.
The court said that in this case of diminished responsibility that the same considerations should apply. In view of the fact that that point had not been put by the judge to the jury and in view of the fact that the learned High Court Judge has left the issue to the jury as one on which the defence were under an obligation to satisfy the court as a matter beyond reasonable doubt, they felt constrained to quash the conviction and to substitute a verdict of manslaughter with an automatic sentence of life imprisonment.
That was done in the case of a man who had beaten a woman to death brutally with a lemonade bottle. There is an immediate answer; it was a case of diminished responsibility. The accused was entitled to have the benefit of it. If he was mentally suffering, I welcome that result. It was a psychiatric case and it was right that that principle should be applied. I make no criticism of it.
We come to the case of Vickers. We know these cases in which grievous bodily harm is not a separate crime, and I would not challenge that for a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has dealt with that point very ably and clearly and I do not want to go over it again. It was said that the real question was whether there was a sufficient


direction to the jury on the question of intent to kill. The judges quoted with approval and described the summing up of Lord Justice Hinchcliffe as impeccable. They also quoted with approval a series of propositions in his summing up putting the matter rather more widely than I have ever heard it put before.
Intent to kill can be implied in Mr. Justice Hinchcliffe's summing up in almost every act of assault. Here was a case in which it was stated that the minimum possible violence was used, although it was a heinous and very serious crime. I have nothing to say on behalf of Vickers from that point of view, except that he was a man who had no criminal record, and apparently did this thing in a moment. There was lack of premeditation, without any planning or foresight.
Of course, the real trouble in the case of Vickers, and the real difficulty of the court of Criminal Appeal, was that the jury completely ignored Section 1. That is clear and I doubt whether anyone would challenge it. The jury said that this man was a bad man who had used violence on a woman who died, and they were going to find him guilty of murder The jury was not excited about all these complicated, technical difficulties. I am trying to put this point as modestly and as moderately as I can. When we discussed this matter in the House we said that this thing was getting so complex and that so many issues were being left to the jury that no jury would be able to sit back and consider them issue by issue in a way that it is vital they should be considered on a capital charge.
I venture to say that these issues are So complex that most of us—I am not talking about three-line Whips, but of considering this matter round a table—would find it very difficult to agree on any set of facts or to give unanimous views.

Sir Keith Joseph: On a point of order. We are all very interested, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to hear the opinions represented on the Opposition side of the House. In view of the possibility that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will take the whole of the rest of the time, could I appeal for some back bench Members on the Government side to be heard?

Mr. Hale: I will do my utmost, but I have only been six minutes on my feet and I have really tried to put an extremely complex argument with brevity. I have come to the end of it, but there are two other points. There is the Attorney-General's fiat. I shall content myself by saying—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but he will be aware that we are limited as to time. We have already been an hour on this matter and I have not yet had an opportunity of putting the Question. There will be no time for a reply at all unless the hon. Member can see his way to bring his speech to a close.

Mr. Hale: I have been on my feet for seven and a half minutes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have been interrupted twice and gave way to one interruption and I intimated that I would sit down in a few moments but I have had to jump the whole of my argument. I must deal with these points because, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, I am in some difficulty and not in complete agreement on part of the Motion. I think I was acting with the utmost possible courtesy, and I do not think anyone will accuse me of responsibility for the hour.
In regard to the fiat, I will content myself with one sentence which would have been well over by now had I not been interrupted. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde)said this yesterday. The answer, as the law papers have said, is that the Attorney-General might well say it is an extremely heavy burden for him to carry in view of the complexity of his office. The situation of the Attorney-General is very anomalous today, partly judicial, partly quasi-judicial, not subject to a writ of prohibition, but at the same time political.
I must say one sentence in conclusion. With the opening four words of this Motion I agree. I regret the execution of John Willson Vickers; I would myself have come to a different conclusion. With any factious criticism of the Home Secretary in this matter I do not agree. He was called upon to exercise an extremely difficult decision in responsibility, which none of us wishes to criticise. Everyone knows that one's views on the gravity of crimes vary very much. I


have seen this week men who have lived on the profits of prostitution getting three months' imprisonment while others who have pleaded guilty to lesser crimes have gone to prison for nine months. One's view about the obnoxious nature of crimes varies. The right hon. Gentleman has a very progressive mind in many matters and has shown a desire to look at the question of judicial reform and mental health. I welcome that and make no more criticism except to say that I would have come to a different conclusion, and I do not think that in the circumstances I could say less.

9.23 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I am sorry to have to intervene at this stage because I am quite certain that there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who would like to have taken part in the debate. I do so because I want an opportunity to reply to the long speech made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)and I have a great deal of ground to cover. I do not propose to take up any time in dealing with the first part of the Motion because the answer to that came from the seconder of the Motion. My right hon. Friend, I am sure all of us in this House know, has a most heavy responsibility placed upon hint and would do his utmost to have proper regard to all relevant factors in deciding what course should be taken.
I want to come straight away to the remainder of the Motion. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne in moving the Motion made no reference to the Motion he originally tabled and to which he obtained 69 signatures.
[That this House deeply deplores the refusal of Mr. Attorney-General to grant his fiat to enable John Willson Vickers to appeal against his conviction to the House of Lords, so as to establish on the highest judicial authority whether or not Section 1 of the Homicide Act effectively abolishes the doctrine of constructive malice and prevents a man from being liable to be convicted of murder who had no intention either to kill or to do grievous bodily harm, as the Government assured the House was its purpose during the debates on the Homicide Act.]
The fact that we are considering tonight a Motion which is differently

worded is an indication that he recognises, as is the case, that the original Motion was misleading.
I am sure that the House will agree with me when I say that the administration of justice is not assisted by misrepresentation or by giving a tendentious account of the facts. If we are to consider this problem properly, it is important that the facts of the case should be correctly appreciated. The hon. Gentleman has said this evening that Vickers had intended to commit a petty larceny, to rob a till. Petty laceny, which has not existed as an offence for about 100 years, meant stealing something worth less than 12 pence. Miss Duckett had in her house £800. The hon. Gentleman wrote an article about this case, which began with the statement:
John Willson Vickers was minded to commit a spot of petty larceny. He broke into a shop, a small general shop in a poor district, and robbed the till.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is a lawyer, and he knows as well as I do that John Willson Vickers was minded to commit burglary. If he has read the summing-up of the learned judge, he knows also that Vickers ransacked not only the shop hut also the house, and that he did so after he had attacked this old lady and left her lying in the cellar.
The hon. Gentleman emphasised, as others have done, that the blows struck—there was evidence of ten to fifteen blows being struck—were moderately severe to quite slight. He omitted to mention that there was evidence also that Vickers had gripped Miss Duckett by the throat, that she had suffered some degree of suffocation and that, after she had fallen to the ground, she had been kicked in the face. There was medical evidence before the jury that, having regard to her age, death would follow the injuries inflicted on her. So much for the facts.
I turn now to the direction of the learned judge. He directed the jury, in the material passage, in these terms:
Murder is with the intention to kill or to do grievous bodily harm.
He went on:
Malice will be implied if the victim was killed by a voluntary act of the accused"—
here is the importance of what I am going to say—
done with the intention either to kill or to do some grievous bodily harm. The grievous


bodily harm need not be permanent but it must be serious, and it is serious or grievous if it is such as seriously and grievously to interefere with the health and comfort of the victim.
The learned judge then said to the jury:
Ask yourselves: Is it proved that the accused man killed Miss Duckett, with malice, that is, when he struck the blows he intended to do grievous bodily harm?
The jury found that it was proved. The only question raised in the Court of Criminal Appeal was this—whether, since the passing of the Homicide Act, proof of an intent to do grievous bodily harm was sufficient to make a killing murder.
Both in his original Motion and that which we are discussing tonight, the hon. Gentleman, with in my view, a lamentable disregard of the facts, has alleged that Vickers's conviction of capital murder was contrary to the declared intention of Her Majesty's Government when they recommended the Homicide Act to Parliament. The truth is the exact opposite. The hon. Gentleman sought to build up a case based on quotations relating to constructive murder while carefully ignoring what was said on behalf of the Government in respect of this very Section in the debates on the Homicide Bill.
The then Home Secretary—this is the relevant passage which the hon. Gentleman did not think fit to quote—when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, speaking in relation to what is now Section I of it, said:
Its effect is that a killing in the course of a felony, resisting an officer of justice, avoiding or escaping from legal custody or from arrest will not be murder unless it is done with intent to kill or to do grievous bodily harm"——

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman
rose——

The Attorney-General: I will not give way—
in other words, unless it is murder in its own right so to speak, irrespective of the fact that it is done in the course of a felony or other offence to which I have referred."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 15th November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1153.]
Those were the words of the then Home Secretary, making it quite clear that it was the view and the intention of the Government to keep it murder if the killing was done with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
To put the effect of the Section another way, when the killing is done in the course of the commission of another

offence, one disregards that other offence and has to consider whether, disregarding that other offence, the killing was murder. That was what the Home Secretary said in relation to the Clause. I said the same thing on more than one occasion in Committee. The hon. Gentleman can refresh his memory of the passages.
The direction given by the learned judge, therefore, entirely agreed with what the Government said was the intention and purpose of Section 1 of the Homicide Act. There can be no doubt about; that. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, the five members of which were unanimous, was that proof of an intent to do grievous bodily harm was still sufficient, as the then Home Secretary told this House, to make a killing murder. So it really is nonsense and wholly untrue to say that the conviction of Vickers was contrary to the declared intention of Her Majesty's Government when introducing the Homicide Act.

Mr. Silverman: The exact truth.

The Attorney-General: If the House would look at the terms of the original Motion tabled by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, they will see that that is so. The terms of the Motion recognised that the intent to do grievous bodily harm is sufficient to make a killing murder. That is the only point at issue in this case.

Mr. Silverman: No, it is not.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has addressed this House for nearly an hour on a Motion of Censure upon me and he ought at least to allow me to make my reply to it. The hon. Gentleman knows that his Motion said that I ought to have granted my fiat to enable John Willson Vickers to appeal to the House of Lords and to establish on the highest judicial authority whether or not Section 1 of the Homicide Act effectively abolishes the doctrine of constructive malice and
prevents a man from being liable to be convicted of murder who had no intention either to kill or to do grievous bodily harm, as the Government assured the House was its purpose during the debates on the Homicide Act".
The hon. Gentleman recognised that in his Motion of Censure, and recognised that a man is still liable to be convicted of murder if he intended to kill or do grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Silverman: I always have done.

The Attorney-General: It was not so clear in the hon. Gentleman's speech this evening. In a debate in Committee on the Homicide Bill he said that he agreed with the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)that
if a man intends to do grievous bodily harm of such a nature that death might easily result, then it is quite right to say that what he intends to do is to kill or to take the risk of killing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1957; Vol. 561, c. 255.]
Here was evidence before the jury, which they no doubt accepted, that death resulted from a series of blows—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman keeps on seeking to interrupt. I wish he would control himself a little—and from the other attacks which were made upon her, and that the jury found.
The only point of law for the consideration of the Court of Criminal Appeal was the very question which the hon. Gentleman does not dispute at all, namely, whether an intent to do grievous bodily harm is sufficient now to render a killing murder.

Mr. Silverman: I really must intervene.

The Attorney-General: I am not giving way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Member in possession of the Floor does not give way, it is disorderly for another hon. Member to keep standing.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. I was rising to a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheat."] What I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, as a point of order is that a Member is entitled to interrupt to protect himself from deliberate misrepresentation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] That is what I was seeking to do.

Mr. Speaker: It lies entirely within the discretion of the hon. Member who has the Floor.

Mr. Silverman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to cheat I cannot stop him.

The Attorney-General: I pay no attention to that kind of observation of the hon. Gentleman. I know its worth.
I have said enough now to dispose of the allegation that the decision in the Vickers case is contrary to the declared intention of the Government in introducing the Bill. In fact it entirely accords with it.
I now come to the third part of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, deploring my failure——

Mr. R. T. Paget: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted me, I wonder if he would allow me to put a question? Is not the really important question here, what does grievous bodily harm mean in this context? According to Archbold, in a one-line definition:
It is not necessary that grievous bodily harm should be either permanent or dangerous.
My submission is that in that sense it is not enough. It must be grievous bodily harm likely to endanger life.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman, I hope, caught the words I quoted from Mr. Justice Hinchcliffe's summing up, when he said, not dealing with the borderline case, that to constitute grievous bodily harm it must be "serious and grievous." There was a great deal of emphasis on that. There was certainly, I should have thought, ample evidence here from which the jury could conclude, from the number of blows struck, from the kicking of her in the face, if they were satisfied by the evidence that that happened, that there was intent to do grievous bodily harm. [Interruption.] No one has suggested that if the direction was right in law there was any impropriety in the direction.
I come to the third part of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, deploring my failure to grant my fiat in this case. I should like to remind the House of the position. I can grant a certificate only if the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and it is in the public interest that a further appeal should be brought.
My duty, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)said correctly, is partly judicial and partly administrative or Ministerial; judicial in deciding whether there is a point of law of exceptional importance, and administrative or Ministerial in


deciding whether it is in the public interest that a further appeal should be brought. In my opinion neither of those conditions was satisfied in this case.
It has been said that I should have granted my fiat because this was a novel point on the construction of a new Statute in a capital case. I am sure it will be appreciated by the House that any question on the construction of a new Statute is likely to be a novel point, but it by no means follows that in consequence of its novelty it is a point of law of exceptional importance. Nor does it become a point of law of exceptional importance because it is a capital case. Nothing turned in the Court of Criminal Appeal on the fact that this was a capital murder, and the point of law that was argued was referable to all cases of murder, capital and non-capital, and might well have arisen in a non-capital case.
Then it is said—and the hon. Gentleman put forward this argument with great force—that as the Lord Chief Justice, at the first hearing before the Court of Criminal Appeal, when there was some difference of view in the court said that it was a point of great importance—those were his actual words: he did not say it was a point of grave importance or exceptional importance, as the hon. Gentleman stated, but that it was a point of "great importance"—and as he adjourned the case for hearing by five judges, I should have regarded it as a point of law of exceptional importance.
I hope and believe that I have taken full account of what the Lord Chief Justice said, and it was on this account that I appeared for the Crown when the case was re-argued, so that I could listen to and weigh up the argument. What I have to consider is not the process leading up to the court's decision but whether that decision itself involves a point of law of exceptional importance. While I did not, of course, ignore what the Chief Justice had said, I had also to bear in mind that when the case was re-argued, after hearing able and experienced counsel for the appellant, and really without calling on me to reply, the Lord Chief Justice, in giving the unanimous decision of the court, dismissed the appeal, not even finding it necessary to reserve his judgment.
I am bound to say, having heard the argument put forward, that it was, in my opinion, wholly untenable, and that this was really not an arguable point of law at all on the construction of the Statute. The point not being, in my view, an arguable point, it was not open to me to consider that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal involved a point of law of exceptional public importance. Holding, as I do, the view that there was no point of law—and that means an arguable point of law of exceptional public importance—I could not regard it as in the public interest that a further appeal should be brought.
That was and is my considered view, and I am sure that the House will agree that it would be quite wrong for me to take into account in any way the strong, and I do not doubt, sincere views of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and others with regard to capital punishment. It is interesting to note that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal accords with the view that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has expressed as to what are the ingredients of the law of murder.
This is not the occasion, and the time is really not available, to discuss in any detail an amendment of the law. I should like, however, to refer briefly to the suggestions which have been made tonight, and in the Bill leave to introduce which was given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde), that appeals should lie to the House of Lords without my certificate.
I think that I speak not only for myself but also for my predecessors when I say that I should not be at all sorry to be relieved of this onerous and often invidious duty, but I would remind the House that the House of Lords has never exercised a criminal jurisdiction in any way comparable to the jurisdiction it exercises in civil cases. It was not the intention of the Criminal Appeal Act that there should be, as there is in civil cases, a system by which cases can be heard by two courts of appellate jurisdiction. What was intended was that only the lost exceptional cases, satisfying the two conditions specified in the Act, should be referred to a higher tribunal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North referred to proceedings in


criminal cases before the Judicial Committee, but I would remind him that leave is granted to appeal to the Judicial Committee in criminal cases only where
… it is shown that, by a disregard of the forms of legal process, or by some violation of the principles of natural justice, or otherwise, substantial and grave injustice has been done.
or, as another great judge put it:
There must be something so irregular or outrageous as to shake the very basis of justice.
Therefore, the tests appear to be different, and indeed stricter. Those are not the tests which I have to apply in considering applications, and I ask the House to consider what the tests ought to be before it turns to the question of who should apply them. The procedure now has the advantage of being swift and expeditious. I doubt very much whether it would continue to be so if provision were made for appeals by leave of the courts.
We always pride ourselves in this country that we do not have the long delays that occur in some other countries in relation to criminal cases. As I have said, however, this is not the time to go into that question in any detail and I will end my references to it by reminding the House that the question was discussed very fully on the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill in 1948. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne will remember it well, because he moved then a Clause designed to alter the present system and there was a very full debate upon it. He was proposing that, in addition to the Attorney-General giving his fiat, there should be an alternative additional method of application to the courts for leave.
His Motion was rejected by the Committee by a decisive majority on a vote which took no account of party lines. I hope that anyone who is interested in this subject will look at the report of that debate where, if I may say so, the case on both sides was extremely well argued. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)will no doubt remember the speech he made on that occasion——

Mr. Ede: I do not.

The Attorney-General: I was crediting the right hon. Gentleman with a better memory than he possesses.

Mr. Ede: I made so many speeches on that Bill that I find it difficult to sort them out now.

The Attorney-General: I must say that I had forgotten what the right hon. Gentleman said until I refreshed my memory, and then I was impressed by what he had said.
I also found another interesting passage in the course of the reports of the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill nine years ago. I saw that, in relation to the exercise of the power conferred on the Attorney-General to grant his fiat, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne said:
There has never been a case, and I hope that there never will be, whatever the fate of this Clause, in which the Attorney-General can be questioned in the House of Commons about his decision in a matter of this kind.
The hon. Gentleman was wrong about that, for there had been a case when Horatio Bottomley, sitting in the same place as the hon. Gentleman sits now, questioned the then Attorney-General. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne went on to say:
I do not believe that the Table would accept such a Question, or ought to"—
He was wrong again there. Then he said this:
… and I think that it would be entirely wrong if the Attorney-General were able to be harried in Parliament by Questions, perhaps on party grounds, and supplementary questions … because he gave an unsatisfactory answer as to whether he had exercised a judicial function in the proper way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee A, 11th March, 1948; Vol. 1, c 1406.]
That, of course, was nine years ago. The hon. Gentleman has quite clearly changed his mind. I do not object to his changing his mind but I do object to his tabling Motions of this character, particularly when the first Motion he tabled, which received the support of sixty-nine Members of this House, was utterly misleading in that it represented that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal was not on the issue of whether an intent to do grievous bodily harm was sufficient to constitute the offence of murder, but that the whole issue in that case was whether the doctrine of constructive malice had been abandoned.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to interrupt now? I really think that I


owe it to the Attorney-General himself and to the House to explain why I withdrew the first Motion and substituted another one. He is right in saying that I did so because the first Motion was misleading, as indeed it was, but the reason it was misleading was because it obscured the question that the real point at issue is precisely what the Government intended the House to mean by "grievous bodily harm".

The Attorney-General: Anyone who listened to the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would not have appreciated that what he said in nearly an hour could have been said in one short sentence. Nor, indeed, was it. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the situation is. I read him the passage from the speech made by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary where he made it perfectly clear that the effect of the Clause was to keep it murder if the killing was done with an intent to do grievous bodily harm.
That was the only issue that arose before the Court of Criminal Appeal. There was no dispute in the debates in this House as to whether or not that should constitute murder. Both sides of the House were agreed that that should be the test. I believe there was one exception. I think that at one time the hon. and learned Member for Northampton thought it ought to be confined to an intent to kill. Otherwise, both sides of the House were agreed upon that.
Mr. Justice Hinchcliffe gave a very clear summing up The Court of Criminal Appeal was unanimous on the subject. I must say that, using the best of my judgment I really could not regard this as a point of law coming within the category within which it must come for me to be able to exercise my narrowly prescribed duty under Section 1 (6)of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907
The hon Member for Nelson and Colne has changed his mind about whether or not he should attack an Attorney-General but I am sure that he also would agree that in exercising what he himself described as a judicial function I should not allow myself to be influenced either by political pressure or by fear of political pressure whether from those who

oppose capital punishment or anyone else

9.53 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: In the very few minutes that remain I want to try to clarify what seems to me to be the issue here. In murder, there are three sorts of intention. First, there is express malice, which means the expressed intention to kill. Secondly, there is constructive malice, which means an intention to do something else, to commit rape or arson. We abolished that. Thirdly, there is implied malice. I venture to say that implied malice means an intention to kill which is not expressed, but is deduced from the evidence and the circumstances.
It is said that it is sufficient if the intention be to do grievous bodily harm. I do not think that the Attorney-General really means that, because he laid great emphasis on the fact that Mr. Justice Hinchcliffe added the word "serious". "Grievous bodily harm" is a term of art. It includes, as I said quoting from Archbold, comparatively trifling injuries, for instance, a bruise which is not likely to be dangerous. That is too wide for the intention necessary here. Nor do I believe that the mere adding of an adjective is a great help to the jury.
In my submission, what the summing up should say is the following, and I quote from page 533 of the Tenth Edition of Russell on "Crime":
Mens rea is now a realisation of the consequence which one's conduct may bring about. Then we can say that malice aforethought is the realisation that one's conduct may cause the death of a human being.
A little later:
The intention to pursue a course of conduct while realising that to do so may cause some person's death.
Or, he puts it again:
The foresight that death would or might be caused.
In my submission—and this is something which the House of Lords will have to decide some time—implied malice, as this House put it into this Section, means just what Archbold said there. It means doing something which the accused foresaw, or must have foreseen as a reasonable man, was likely to endanger life. Does this summing up do that in this case? It adds to the words "grievous


bodily harm," which the Attorney-General agrees are too wide, the word "serious." Does that really indicate to the jury what was intended?
Again, in another passage from this judgment, Mr. Justice Hinchcliffe says:
If capital murder is not so proved and you come to the conclusion that the accused killed Miss Duckett without malice, that is without intending her any harm, or only trifling harm, then your verdict would be one of guilty of manslaughter.
I do not think that the Attorney-General would really suggest that that taken alone would really be an adequate direction.
He says that the word confines it, or widens it—or whatever the context means—makes it clear, but I submit that this is something that the House of Lords will have to consider at some time; that the direction ought to have been and there may be perfect evidence to come to the conclusion in this case: did this man Vickers know that what he did was endangering life? That is the test. I do not myself say that in this summing up that question was not properly or fairly put to the jury. It seems to me that at some time this question will have to go to the House of Lords, and I regret that this opportunity was not taken.

Question put and negatived.

ST. ANDREW'S DOCK, HULL (RECONSTRUCTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

9.58 p.m.

Major Patrick Wall: I should like to explain to the House that St. Andrew's Dock is the main fishing dock of the Port of Hull. This dock was in my constituency until the time of the last General Election. After the Election, owing to the redistribution of boundaries, the dock passed to the constituency of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull (Captain Hewitson), who has told me that he wished to take part in the debate. However, many of those who work in the dock come from my constituency.
St. Andrew's Dock is the base of the fishing fleet operating from the Port of Hull. It is probably the largest fishing port

in this country or, indeed, in the world. Every seaman knows that the efficiency of a fleet, naval or mercantile or fishing, depends on the efficiency of its base or port. It is my contention that St. Andrew's Dock does not come up to the state of efficiency that Should be expected in the great Port of Hull.
The particular point in question is that of the slipways. St. Andrew's Dock was operated by the L.N.E.R. before the war and there were discussions just pre-war about the rebuilding of the slipways. In 1947, after the war, these discussions were reopened. Up to date, nothing has been done. In 1957, we have the position that, out of 137 trawlers operating from Hull—these are all large long distance boats going to Greenland and the North Cape, and only 56 can be slipped in St. Andrew's Dock. The position is getting worse as the older and smaller boats are being scrapped, and are being replaced by new and larger ones——

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Major Wall: We have the position now that not only is the whole of the industry at Hull confronted by delays, as ships cannot have their bottoms scraped, and cannot be repainted and surveyed, but increased costs are incurred because ships have to be sent to the commercial docks and to the other Humber ports, where they are causing congestion amongst the other merchant shipping. This is unpopular in merchant shipping circles. I might add that this problem also affects the other great fishing port, Grimsby, though to a lesser degree.
I should like to point out to my hon. Friend the length of time that has been taken over discussions of the problems of reconstructing these slipways in St. Andrew's Dock, Hull. These discussions opened in 1947. In 1951, the Hull trawler owners said that they considered it essential to have a full reconstruction of three slipways and one side berth. The British Transport Commission—or the Docks, Inland Waterways and Harbours Executive as it then was—appeared to accept this position and made investigations into estimated costs. In 1952,


there arose the question of who was to pay the large capital sum involved in this reconstruction. The owners were told that they must make a case that the reconstruction was both essential and urgent and that, meanwhile, the Docks, Inland Waterways and Harbours Executive would continue to examine the detailed costs and the problem as to how the capital was to be provided.
Later in 1952 the suggestion was made to the owners that they should pay for the reconstruction by floating a special company and building the slipways themselves. This suggestion was pressed on the owners in 1953 and again in 1954. It was finally rejected in 1954, the trawler owners contending that the British Transport Commission, who owned and managed the port, was responsible for seeing that it was modernised and brought up to the condition necessary to operate an efficient fishing fleet. The owners admitted that this would mean increased dock and shipping charges, but they felt that they should not bear the responsibility for providing the large capital sums necessary.
At a meeting later in that year the owners made it clear that they would not consider reconstructing these slipways themselves, as they felt that it was the responsibility of the Transport Commission. It was again accepted—and I emphasise this—that it would obviously be necessary to raise the charges. That is accepted by the owners.
A quick decision was asked for. In point of fact, it was not until nearly a year later, in November, 1955, that the Transport Commission replied to the owners' request and, for the first time for three years, brought up the question as to whether it was really necessary and essential to reconstruct these slipways. In other words, we went back to the 1951 position. In 1956, there was a further meeting, and the Transport Commission said that if it was to reconstruct the slipways itself—and I put this very briefly, and without going into details—it would require the owners to produce a scheme showing how they could raise £50,000 a year for the next fifty years in order to recompense the Commission for reconstructing and operating the slipways.
The financial side of this suggestion was investigated for some months, and, finally, the owners said that they could not possibly consider mortgaging prosperity to such a great extent as it would virtually mean guaranteeing so large a sum for as long a period as fifty years.
We then come to 1957. This year, the port was presented with a scheme for increased charges, both for slipping and docking. This was to be expected and, indeed, the owners have said all along that if the slipways are to be reconstructed they must expect to pay higher charges. But the dock charges have risen by a very great amount under the new proposals. There is up to a 400 per cent. increase on the dock charges operating in 1939. The new fishing dues, which are a quite new financial imposition, are estimated to be going to cost trawler owners as much as £100 per trawler per trip. Ice, which is a matter of importance to the fishing fleet, has gone up in cost by 700 per cent., compared with 1939, and meal offal by 357 per cent.
It can therefore be seen that the Commission has had its pound of flesh in its increased charges. There is one other item in respect of which the increase seems to be a rather high one. Cod liver oil has increased from 3½d. a ton to 12s. 6d. a ton.

Mr. William Shepherd: My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to these increased charges for meal and cod liver oil. He says that these are very important to the trawler owners. Can he explain how these charges come in?

Major Wall: These are charges for landing and dealing with these commodities on the docks. Quite rightly, the people operating the docks want to take some money in respect of these items for the use of the docks. That is fair enough. I am not arguing the merits or demerits of the case; I am merely seeking to show that the Commission has increased its charges and intends to increase them further in order to recoup itself for the losses it has suffered for some time in connection with the fish docks at St. Andrews. At the same time, it is arguing that because the dock is losing so much money it cannot afford to build new slipways. It seems to me that it is trying to have it both ways.
My charge against the Commission is one of bad stewardship, as owners of this vitally important dock in Hull. Obviously it intends to try to make it pay. Obviously, as the owner, it has responsibilities to the community, and to the whole fishing industry, to see that this major port is equipped and fitted out in such a way as to be able to allow a modern fleet to operate from it satisfactorily. No one can pretend that this dock is satisfactory when it is incapable of slipping more than 50 per cent. of the present number of trawlers operating from it.
I had intended to cut my remarks short, as I understood that the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West wished to join in the debate. Unfortunately, he does not seem to be in the Chamber at the moment, so I shall merely conclude by saying that the gravamen of my charge is the question of slipways.
But I should also mention that the dock was damaged during the war—bomb damage to No. 1 quay—and that nothing whatever was done about it until 1955. In 1945, the war ended and ten years elapsed before any reconstruction took place—and in the following year, 1956, the adjacent part collapsed and fell into the dock. It is probable that nobody could be blamed for that, but it is a fact that this vitally important dock was not repaired quickly. Ten years elapsed before repair work was begun, and the following year another section, which must have been weakened in the original bomb damage ten years before, collapsed into the dock, putting two leading berths out of action for some considerable time.
All these facts seem to me to support the contention that St. Andrew's Dock has been neglected by the Commission. This is not only a constituency matter, or one which affects only the port of Hull. It affects the whole fishing industry, because trawlers operating from the port are all long-distance trawlers which, accompanied by those from Grimsby and Fleetwood which are both distant and middle-water ports, form practically 100 per cent. of the distant-water fleet.
Therefore, it is fair to say that the majority of our large trawlers, which are vitally important for the catching of cod and which play an important part in time of war, operate from this port. It would

follow that the port should have special consideration by the Commission to see that it can stand up to the important task which it has to perform not only for the benefit of Hull and the East Riding, but for the distant-water fishing industry and the provision of this vitally important food for the British housewife.
I repeat that my charge is that the Transport Commission has been shown to be very laggard in its handling of this problem. In this matter it has not been a good steward in the discharge of its responsibilities.

10.11 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): In raising this matter my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, Haltemprice (Major Wall)has made some very serious charges against the British Transport Commission. The Commission has at all times been ready and willing to improve the facilities at St. Andrew's Dock which, I quite agree, is the most important of its kind. Not only has he accused the Commission of bad stewardship, but of neglect, and I wish immediately to deny that anything of that kind has occurred.
It is true that over a quarter of the total fish supplies for this country pass through St. Andrew's Dock. In fact, the port handles a greater tonnage of fish than is handled anywhere else in the country. It amounts to about 5,000 tons of fish a week. Every day ten train loads of fish leave Hull for all parts of the country, and possibly even a greater quantity goes by road. The problem raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is a very important one, but I think the charges he has made are exaggerated. I wish to say something about the attitude of the Commission to this matter.
Some of the trawlers based on Hull are too large for the slipways at St. Andrew's Dock though it is a fact that they can be berthed elsewhere in Hull. For some time past, Hull trawler owners have asked that these slipways should be reconstructed to cater for the larger classes of trawlers. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, because he has attended various meetings on the subject, a scheme involving the enlargement of three of these slipways and the provision of a side berth has been discussed by the trawler owners with the


Commission. The total cost of the scheme would be about £700,000 and, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows and will probably agree, the financial arrangements are the difficulty.
Not only has the Commission been for some time, in effect, subsidising the fishing industry of Hull, as is admitted by my hon. and gallant Friend, but it has been losing money on the operation and I think the trawler owners accept that position. The charges and rates referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, even with the increase of 5 per cent. recently approved by my right hon. Friend, are still too low to run the dock efficiently. It is true that a draft dock charges scheme has been prepared by the Commission and there will be a public inquiry into that matter. The trawler owners may make their objections which they must lodge before 31st December of this year. The final form of the dock charges scheme is a matter for the Transport Tribunal.
As my hon. and gallant Friend quite rightly says, the slipways are the important thing, and the question of finance. I gather that the trawler owners appreciate that the slipways would be for their benefit and would have to be paid for by them in one form or another, that is to say, the trawler owners would have to make some reasonable contribution towards the cost of these slipways.
The meetings to which my hon. Friend refers have been taking place since 1954 with Sir Robert Letch who is general manager of the British Transport Commission Docks. My hon. and gallant Friend is aware of this, because he has attended these meetings. The British Transport Commission is anxious to find a solution, as are all those who have the interests of the Port of Hull at heart. One solution is that since practically all the trawler repairs are done by one firm which is a subsidiary of the trawler owners, that firm should take the lease of the land necessary for the reconstruction of the slipways. The lessees should construct the slipways at their own cost and should maintain them. The trawler owners were not prepared to commit themselves to that plan.
A counter-proposal was that the Commission should reconstruct two of the slipways, C and D, and that a special

new charges scale should be brought about to recover the costs. It would include a side berth and the cost would be not £700,000, which was the cost of the main scheme but £600,000. One of the objections of the British Transport Commission was, and I submit rightly, that this special scheme would remove the charges scheme from Parliamentary control to that of the Transport Tribunal. Discussions have continued, and I hope that further discussions will soon take place.
The capital expenditure involved would be justified only if a real need for additional slipways were established. I am advised that, taken as a whole, the present accommodation is adequate, although the British Transport Commission is open to be convinced to the contrary. It is prepared to discuss the matter further.
The second point is that the conditions in which the slipways would be used would have to be very carefully considered for larger vessels. The most important thing, to which my hon. and gallant Friend quite rightly drew attention, is that the financial scheme will have to be settled on the basis that the trawler owners must make their contribution. They would have, for instance, to guarantee the interest, sinking-fund charges, maintenance and operating costs, and the cost to them would be about £50,000 a year. I draw my hon. and gallant Friend's attention to these points because the British Transport Commission consider that these are important matters in this case.
My hon. and gallant Friend referred in a way which I did not accept, to neglect on the part of the British Transport Commission. He may have been thinking, when he referred to part of the docks, of the fact that part of the fish market collapsed. That was due not to the neglect of the British Transport Commission but to war damage by a land-mine. The reconstruction of the market by the British Transport Commission is in hand at a cost of £470,000.

Major Wall: The damage occurred, as my hon. Friend has said, because of a landmine in 1945, but reconstruction was not started until 1956. Is not that rather a long time to wait to reconstruct this rather important fish market?

Mr. Neave: It may be that time was taken to do this, but my hon. and gallant


Friend must admit that there has been a considerable subsidy to the fishing industry at considerable cost to the nation. 'The Commission cannot continue to subsidise the fishing industry without contribution from the trawler owners, who have made it clear from their discussions with the Commission that the slipways would be solely for their benefit. The British Transport Commission is ready to meet them further to find a basis for agreement. I believe that Sir Robert Letch has already written to them.

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: I should like my hon. Friend to clear up one point. He has said that the slipways are adequate. The burden of the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall)surely is that not only do they want repairing or renewing, but that they are not adequate to take the bigger trawlers. The distant water fleet, as has been said, is the most modern in the world and the trawler owners have been at great pains to maintain it, renew it and bring it to its present condition. In Hull we are without slipways which are adequate for those larger trawlers. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary also said that the industry——

Mr. Speaker: This is a rather long intervention. If time remains, perhaps

the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. W. R. A. Hudson)may have an opportunity to put these points later.

Mr. Neave: I was in fact coming to the end of my remarks and no doubt my hon. Friend will be able to pursue this matter. I did say that these slipways appeared to be adequate and the Commission would have to be satisfied on that point. At present there are sufficient berths, I understand, for the larger trawlers in other parts of Hull, but perhaps my hon. Friend is prepared to pursue the matter and I would be glad to consider the point. The British Transport Commission is open to be convinced to the contrary about this matter. Perhaps my hon. Friend will try to do that, but in respect of what has been said I do not wish it to be understood for a moment that the Commission is not very keen to give every assistance in improving facilities in the Port of Hull.

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: All I can repeat is that my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out that the slipways are quite inadequate for the bigger trawlers. Therefore, I cannot see how it can be argued that the slipways are at present adequate for that fleet.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.